Jump to content

Menu
Giving You and Your Child a Road Map to the Best Possible Education
The Well-Trained Mind Community

ChocolateReignRemix

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,040

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ChocolateReignRemix

  1. ChocolateReignRemix
    Exactly. In fact, one would have to struggle long and hard to find even one case where a child was abducted because of a random picture on a blog, especially when the child is not named. When I am in public, I understand others can take my photograph and use it as they please.
  2. ChocolateReignRemix
    In general, yes.
  3. ChocolateReignRemix
    "Gus" is one of my all time favorite guilty pleasures. Don Knotts at his best. Your oldest is just at the perfect age for "Pistol".
  4. ChocolateReignRemix
    "Space Jam" should be fine, but might be a little iffy for the older kids. I enjoyed it though. Check on the language in Pistol: Birth of a Legend". If it is okay, I can't recommend it enough. You can find some clips on YouTube which will give you a feel for the movie. It is based on a true story, which makes me like it a bit more than the others.
  5. ChocolateReignRemix
    "Hoosiers" and "Miracle" both have some minor bad language. "Hoosiers" in particular would not be for the younger kids. Great movie though. Look into "Pistol" - story of Pistol Pete Marovich. Good movie, and although I haven't seen it in years, I don't recall any bad language. IMO an above average sports movie for kids that never got much love. Going a bit old school... "Gus" - Disney movie about Gus, the football kicking mule. Don Knotts, etc., and still a family favorite even with our older boys. Circa 1976 or so. Very campy (obviously). "The World's Greatest Athlete" - 1973 Disney movie about a decathlete. A couple of others to look into include "Little Giants" (definite potty humor, not sure about the language) and "Mighty Ducks" (ditto).
  6. ChocolateReignRemix
    Who bought those slaves? Who wrote articles of secession that included the right to maintain other human beings in bondage? Were northerners guilty in the slave trade? Certainly. Were northerners pristine when it came to race relations? Certainly not. Does this in any way justify slavery in the south, the fact that the south felt the need to go to war to defend slavery (er, *cough* *cough* "states rights")? Absolutely not. Again, there was a ban on importing slaves starting in the early 1800s. The slave trade continued in southern states internally. And after the war which lead to the emancipation of the slaves? The moment they were given the opportunity, the southern states stripped blacks of every right they could. Justify that. I dare you. But hey, it's okay if someone's great-great-grandpappy only beat his slaves now and then. Maybe he even let them have an extra chicken at Christmas.
  7. ChocolateReignRemix
    Please read what you wrote again. Yes, you were justifying slavery. Slaves were considered part of the family? Nonsense. I suggest you look up the slave codes that were passed in all of the southern states. You are exaggerating greatly the frequency and generosity of emancipation. Some of the southern states made it illegal for free blacks to own property. Of course, their primary beef with the US, as evidenced by their articles of secession, was that they wanted to keep the right to enslave other human beings. The flag you adore was flown in support of slavery, and resurrected in support of segregation. Chew on that for a moment. Congress banned the importation of slaves. The southern states still allowed the slave trade within their borders. Your forefathers fought to hold others in bondage. You can glorify it all you want, but the articles of secession for the Confederate states make it quite clear. Your slave holding ancestors were racists. Accept it. Of course that had ended well before the Civil War (1807?), but yes, that was inexcusable. That in no way excuses the Confederate states fighting to keep other human beings in bondage. You haven't presented anything even remotely worthwhile. So small farmers worked alongside their slaves. So? In what way does a free man working to benefit from the sweat of his own brow justify him keeping another man in chains next to him? Some slave holders were not abusive? good for them. And that makes it better for the slave who did not have a right to their own life? Yes, your forefathers certainly were freedom fighters. Standing up for state rights and all, while being more than willing to whip another man for not working hard enough, attempting to escape, or looking the wrong way at a white woman. The disconnect among white southerners on this issue is frankly disturbing. I cannot fathom how someone does not see the ignorance inherent in the claim that their ancestors were fighting for the noble cause of freedom from federal tyranny while at the same time holding other human beings as slaves. When coupled with the vicious defense of segregation in the south, it does make one wonder exactly how deluded someone has to be to look completely past how race is the basis for all of this.
  8. ChocolateReignRemix
    Are you serious? You justify slavery because there were not enough workers to pick the cotton without the slaves? Circular logic. Wow. The "entire picture"? Abuse of slaves was rare? Let us simply start with the fact that these were human beings that were bought, sold, and owned as if they were farm animals. They had no rights. None. They could not own property, and they did not even control their own bodies. They could be (and were) whipped, r*ped, and outright murdered at the whim of their owner. Mothers had to worry that their children could be taken from them and SOLD. And you want to say that this wasn't so bad because some plantation owners were NICE? They still OWNED another human being. You are aware that those tribes in Africa that sold other tribes into slavery did it for the material goods, and also to keep from being taken into slavery themselves. And yes, they were wrong for doing so. That doesn't in any way, shape, or form excuse slavery in the US. I should be stunned by what you have written, but sadly, I'm not. Indentured servants were not equivalent to slaves. I will not defend the practice, but indentured servants had legal rights that slaves did not have, and their period of service was limited. They also did not have to fear watching their families sold out from under them. Wow. Just wow. I am not sure what that is even supposed to mean. The south's economic model was based on slavery, so excuse me if I don't shed any tears about how it was in jeopardy from the dastardly north. Were your great grandfathers honored by members of the KKK waving it in the faces of Civil Rights marchers as they were beaten? By states choosing to fly the flag again to protest the federal government *forcing* them to give equal rights to all of its citizens? The "right" your great grandfathers fought for was to keep other human beings in bondage. You can justify that with your own twisted reasoning (and yes, I will say with your own racist ideology), but it doesn't make it right.
  9. ChocolateReignRemix
    One correction - the south was poorer than the north on both a real and a per capita basis. I do agree that southerners didn't march off to war because they were poor/starving. Many wars have been referred to as "a rich man's war but a poor man's fight", and the Civil War is a perfect example.
  10. ChocolateReignRemix
    I don't believe anyone has called those who fought for the south "evil". I do believe they fought for a system that was quite evil, and they did so believing it was in their best interest (however, it was that very system that was actually holding the south back). I can *understand*why they did what they did, but that does not mean I will condone it or call those who fought for the south courageous. I also cannot understand why someone now feels the need to celebrate what their great-great-great grandfather did at the battle of Antietam, and why they would choose to do so flying the same flag proudly displayed by the KKK. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
  11. ChocolateReignRemix
    I agree. Unfortunately, this kind of discussion always splits into those two distinct arguments. Those who defend the flag see it as a cultural symbol because they are able to do so. They have never been hurt by its use or been affected by the message that some choose to send by flying it. Those who have been understand quite clearly the message it sends now, and cannot look past that to see it as simply a "piece of history".
  12. ChocolateReignRemix
    You are making some vast leaps in logic regarding the economic struggles between the north and the south. There was no intention to "destroy" the south and take over the farms as you claim, although there certainly were tariff battles that southern plantation owners felt put them at a disadvantage. The southern economy was more agrarian than the north, but the north was not to blame for the difference. Southern culture and leadership played a larger role in the difference than any other factor. Southern states had based their economies on an economic model that was not sustainable, but had painted themselves into a corner politically, financially, and culturally.
  13. ChocolateReignRemix
    Celebrating the courage of those that were fighting to oppress others? No thanks. I won't even bother to respect it. They did what they thought they should do, but that doesn't make it right, and it certainly isn't something I will glorify. If I had a long lost relative that bravely fought for the Nazis, I wouldn't fly a Swatika in his memory.
  14. ChocolateReignRemix
    Does the Democratic party still support slavery or discrimination? No. Same for those Christian denominations (or so I hope). The difference is that the Confederate flag wasn't just used during the Civil War, but was also prominently displayed as a symbol of hate during the segregation battles. As stated many times in this thread, it is no coincidence that it started being flown again over southern capitols in the 50s and 60s. I will admit that I do not understand flying a flag to celebrate the deeds of an ancestor that you never met, particularly when they way you choose to do so happens to be the same way that others have represented their desire to limit the rights of other Americans.
  15. ChocolateReignRemix
    Oohhhh. Grammar snark. Very mature. The correctly spelling of the word in your 3rd sentence is "southerners" not "souterners". The 4th sentence should be "ignorant" not "ignornant", and the 7th should be "view" not "viw". Perhaps instead of looking for errors, you could actually read what I said. Someone defending the Confederate soldiers used the term "courageous", and I used it in a response. I also said quite clearly above that "I understand" why southerners did what they did, but I cannot condone or defend ignorance.
  16. ChocolateReignRemix
    PQR did. The person I quoted in the reply that you then responded to a post ago.
  17. ChocolateReignRemix
    Born and raised here. My MA is in economics, and quite a bit of my undergraduate and graduate work was on comparative economic systems, which included work on the slavery in the Confederacy and why it was not sustainable as a economic model.
  18. ChocolateReignRemix
    Yes, the average southerner was very poor. But why? Examine the economic, political, and educational system of the south at the time. It certainly did not benefit the average southerner. Yet they marched off to war to defend a system that was oppressive to them. That is courageous? Not in my book. Could southern leadership have went to war over slavery without the support of the southern masses? No, and they knew it. Which is why the dangers of black emancipation and the evils of the black race were fed to southerners constantly by their press and their politicians. I refuse to condone or defend the actions of southerners which were caused by their ignorance (and I am using that word in its purest definition). I understand why they did what they did, but it was neither courageous nor something that should be celebrated.
  19. ChocolateReignRemix
    I am quite certain I have a better overall understanding of U.S. history than you do (double major in economics and history, emphasis on United States history), especially based on your posts in this thread. If you want to start the snark about homeschooling versus public education, the outright ignorance displayed by *some* throughout this thread in defense of the Confederacy makes an excellent case for the dangers of those who are vastly undereducated teaching their children.
  20. ChocolateReignRemix
    1.) The first is a fact that no one disputes. It is reasonable to question why one with any intelligence would fly a flag that has been used repeatedly as a symbol of hate and oppression. 2.) I see nothing particularly courageous about fighting to uphold articles of secession that are based heavily on the right to keep other human beings in bondage. (And yes, that is a fact as well.) I also don't see the need to celebrate what relatives of mine did generations back. Perhaps if some of those confederate soldiers had been less "courageous", and not so heavily brainwashed by southern leadership, then the matter of slavery could have been resolved without bloodshed. Strangely enough, had that occurred, the argument in favor of states rights would be much stronger now. 3.) True, but "states rights" has been the base of the argument in favor of both slavery and segregation. Again, if states rights advocates picked their battles better, or actually had the courage to fight against the racists among them, they would not find themselves stuck with such negative connotations of their position.
  21. ChocolateReignRemix
    Exactly. And as some of us have pointed out, it is no coincidence that some southern states started flying the Confederate flag again during the segregation battles. I don't hate the south or southerners (I am one myself), but it is quite sad how some here go to extremes to defend the darkest aspects of southern history, and try to justify the actions of those who fought to keep others in bondage. I actually get a headache when I hear those who fought for the Confederacy celebrated as heroes and freedom fighters.
  22. ChocolateReignRemix
    It isn't. I love the U.S., and work diligently to help make it a better place. I also recognize that we have made many mistakes throughout history. I do chuckle at the China-phobia though. I seem to recall the same fear of Arab states in the late 70s, Japan in the 80s, and even a little directed at Germany in the early 90s. Like all nations, China will have its own issues to deal with soon enough.
  23. ChocolateReignRemix
    I am sorry, but if you don't understand that the Confederate Flag has been used many, many times as a symbol of hate, then I don't really know what to say. Do you think there wasn't a message being sent when the state of South Carolina decided to fly it over the capitol building in 1962? I have relatives that were attacked by dogs and beaten by the police while bystanders displayed their "southern pride" while waving that flag. You know why you don't see it as a symbol of hate? Because you CAN. You haven't been victimized by those who use it to represent their agenda.
  24. ChocolateReignRemix
    Office/company culture often trumps the usual meaning. Generally business casual would mean no tie.
  25. ChocolateReignRemix
    The previous posters nailed it, but here is a helpful link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_casual
×
×
  • Create New...