Veritas Press racist description of the Civil War

[rbk mama]

I haven't read this book, but the book description in the Veritas Press catalog is awful:

"Iron Scouts of the Confederacy

The adventures of two teenage brothers who grew up during the War between the States as orphans and as soldiers. The decisions they make cause them to learn a great deal about the faithfulness of God, and the horrible price the South had to pay to support their belief in State's rights."

The Civil War was not about State's rights - it was about defending the ownership, torture, and murder of dark-skinned humans. So disappointed in Veritas Press. And throwing God in there - as if God were supporting this endeavor - makes it so much more disgusting.

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by rbk mama

[GoodnightMoogle]

Veritas Press publishes materials written by Douglas Wilson, so really you cant be surprised by the neo-confederacy nonsense in any of their other materials. I’m sad, I once used to get excited over their book lists, but I could never trust their materials, nor would I give them my money. 

It disgusts me that the claim to be a Christian company and yet continue to support Wilson and his ideology. 

[Ellie]

The War between the States was definitely states' rights. Not that I approve of Doug Wilson, but I do think it's important for people to read more than one POV.

[Sneezyone]

29 minutes ago, Ellie said:

The War between the States was definitely states' rights to own, buy, sell, trade, rape, torture, permanently enslave and otherwise commodify other human beings. Not that I approve of Doug Wilson, but I do think it's important for people to read more than one POV.

It’s not a matter of POV. Primary source documents from individuals on both sides make the bolded plain.

[Ellie]

26 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It’s not a matter of POV. Primary source documents from individuals on both sides make the bolded plain.

Well, actually, there are plenty of source documents which make just the opposite plain.

[HomeAgain]

It's the companies that constantly toot their own horn about how Christian they are that are the worst at being so.  Veritas, Apologia, BJU.....I have no respect for any of them.

Veritas Press has been awful since the Omnibus scandal, when they tried to publish an errata for blatant plagiarizing their materials.  They have no morals but want your money.

 

[Slache]

5 hours ago, Ellie said:

Well, actually, there are plenty of source documents which make just the opposite plain.

And a lot of source documents that support it. There were definitely a lot of reasons, but had it not been for slavery the Civil War never would have happened.

[maize]

1 hour ago, Slache said:

 had it not been for slavery the Civil War never would have happened.

Precisely this.

Slavery was an ugly cancer that was present when our country was established and was going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. Either slave-holding states needed to choose to peacefully give up keeping people as slaves (how often do people with power and wealth choose to give those up peacefully? Individuals sometimes do, but I am aware of no situation where an entire power-wielding class has done so) or there was going to be a war to force the end of slavery.

[rbk mama]

8 hours ago, Ellie said:

The War between the States was definitely states' rights. Not that I approve of Doug Wilson, but I do think it's important for people to read more than one POV.

This is not about POV. What you are saying is fiction created to protect the feelings of the South. Please think about how framing the Civil War as being merely about "States' rights" totally denies the evil of slavery that was actually the center of the conflict. This "POV" is about perpetuating white supremacy and the denial of the full humanity of others.

[rbk mama]

7 hours ago, Ellie said:

Well, actually, there are plenty of source documents which make just the opposite plain.

Curious if you are referring to primary source documents written AFTER the war.

[HomeAgain]

8 hours ago, Ellie said:

The War between the States was definitely states' rights. Not that I approve of Doug Wilson, but I do think it's important for people to read more than one POV.

This is nonsense.  It also negates the growing tension over slavery, balance of slave/free states, the Freeport question, the Dredd Scott decision, and growing fear of economic disruption.

Not only was it not about states' rights, but when you look at what the Confederacy became in such a short time it was a centralized government without state rights.

You don't get a POV when you're just wrong.  It means you don't have enough information to have a viewpoint yet.

[rbk mama]

2 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

It's the companies that constantly toot their own horn about how Christian they are that are the worst at being so.  Veritas, Apologia, BJU.....I have no respect for any of them.

Veritas Press has been awful since the Omnibus scandal, when they tried to publish an errata for blatant plagiarizing their materials.  They have no morals but want your money.

 

These companies are definitely defaming the name of Christ in their racist materials. Abeka and ACE are others. 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/12/right-wing-textbooks-teach-slavery-black-immigration

[HomeAgain]

4 minutes ago, rbk mama said:

These companies are definitely defaming the name of Christ in their racist materials. Abeka and ACE are others. 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/12/right-wing-textbooks-teach-slavery-black-immigration

Yes.  And A Beka is also put out by PCC, which is awful in its own right.  ACE..ugh. 

Pretty much if it's a mainstream "Christian" curriculum I steer clear, with very few exceptions.  There's nothing many of them are going to teach my children except how to be an awful human and remain ignorant of the world around them.  They distort facts, keep them from exercising critical thinking skills, and have a primary agenda that isn't education, but indoctrination at all costs. It's really easy in this day and age to see all the scandals associated with a company and their employees, so I'm not sure why people still use them or are promoted.  For us, I'm not willing to pay the price of my child's morality and mental abilities in order to enrich a company's pockets.  It's just not worth it in the long run.

[Slache]

3 hours ago, rbk mama said:

Curious if you are referring to primary source documents written AFTER the war.

I did a deep dive on this a while back and I can't name any right now, but there are some from important people before the war. I actually agree with the confederacy on every issue but slavery. That's part of why people were so torn, and people fought for the wrong side. I think, personally, everything the south stood for was what America was supposed to stand for, but in the end freeing the slaves was more important.

[Ting Tang]

I have read the articles on Abeka after we chose to use it.  At the time we chose to use Abeka, we were new and making a last minute decision to homeschool. I had no idea there were so many different homeschool curriculums.  Anyway, my son's 3rd grade history book was brand new and revised, and I actually thought the company had made a good effort in including non-white historical figures---better than what I have seen with other curriculums.  I'm now aware of it being problematic later on, perhaps with unrevised versions, and I have also heard that there are references to other Christian denominations that are not respectful.  I don't like when curriculums do that. 

I honestly feel like a lot of history curriculums are problematic.  Some of the books and sources are old and outdated and lack diversity and perspective. 

I like the Heritage Homeschool Mom's booklists.  I've messaged with Dr. Anika Prather, too.  Maybe the books are out there and are harder to find, but it'd be nice to have more sources on the past that were written in a more modern way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nwahomeschoolmom]

deleting post.... probably shouldn't be discussing historical civil war on a forum, while our country is on the verge of a second one.

Edited May 12, 2022 by nwahomeschoolmom

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, nwahomeschoolmom said:

Ironically, it is many of the "confederate states" now protecting the unborn.   I grew up in a "liberal state" and then relocated to a "southern state" and learned a lot about history I never knew!   Slavery is bad, but it does seem like it was an excuse for war and to further industrialize the south.  Since when is our government simply altruistic?  Is there wasn't something in it for them, they wouldn't have allowed the civil war to occur and ended slavery.  I will probably delete this comment in a few....

OMG please. You've attended one too many MLM parties. Anyone who begins a comment with "Slavery is bad, but..." has issues. You do realize that women in those states are now being denied access to ectopic pregnancy treatment/medications at pharmacies, yes? The stupid. It burns. They're not protecting 'life'. They're exacerbating subjugation, same as they always have. My DHs family is third gen. Arkansan. Do you know any black people like that who share your view?

ETA: So......that's a no.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

12 hours ago, Slache said:

I did a deep dive on this a while back and I can't name any right now, but there are some from important people before the war. I actually agree with the confederacy on every issue but slavery. That's part of why people were so torn, and people fought for the wrong side. I think, personally, everything the south stood for was what America was supposed to stand for, but in the end freeing the slaves was more important.

Bless you...recreate it...SOMEWHERE ELSE. This country was/is occupied. I hear Russia is lovely this time of year.

[Janeway]

On 5/10/2022 at 11:51 PM, Sneezyone said:

It’s not a matter of POV. Primary source documents from individuals on both sides make the bolded plain.

It is not cool to quote someone and then change what they said.

Fact is, in the Civil War, some Northern states were allowed to continue slavery and some southern states did not have it. This is proof that the Civil War was not just about slavery.

 

https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

Edited May 12, 2022 by Janeway

[KSera]

11 minutes ago, Janeway said:

Fact is, in the Civil War, some Northern states were allowed to continue slavery and some southern states did not have it. This is proof that the Civil War was not just about slavery.

 

https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

I can’t believe people here on TWTM are trying to argue the Civil War was about something other than the Southern states wanting to preserve slavery. The fact that it didn’t end overnight does not in any way negate that fact. From the link you just shared: “The Civil War was fundamentally a conflict over slavery.”

[Cordelia]

22 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

I have read the articles on Abeka after we chose to use it.  At the time we chose to use Abeka, we were new and making a last minute decision to homeschool. I had no idea there were so many different homeschool curriculums.  Anyway, my son's 3rd grade history book was brand new and revised, and I actually thought the company had made a good effort in including non-white historical figures---better than what I have seen with other curriculums.  I'm now aware of it being problematic later on, perhaps with unrevised versions, and I have also heard that there are references to other Christian denominations that are not respectful.  I don't like when curriculums do that. 

I honestly feel like a lot of history curriculums are problematic.  Some of the books and sources are old and outdated and lack diversity and perspective. 

I like the Heritage Homeschool Mom's booklists.  I've messaged with Dr. Anika Prather, too.  Maybe the books are out there and are harder to find, but it'd be nice to have more sources on the past that were written in a more modern way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Prather also has some book lists on her website: https://drprather.com/youth-reading-list/

 

I pull from her lists when I put together programs for my kids. 

[Susan in TX]

 

https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Abraham Lincoln

 

[KSera]

43 minutes ago, Susan in TX said:

 

https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Abraham Lincoln

 

That quote is from a letter written after the Emancipation Proclamation had already been written. Lincoln himself was not as equality-minded as he is often portrayed, but it doesn't change that the most pressing "states' right" that the south was agitating over and wanting to withdraw from the union over was the right to own slaves and for new states added to the union to be able to be slave holding states as well. I don't know why there would be a desire today to pretend that wasn't the case. What right is it that you think states wanted to secede over? What would be the reason for not wanting to say it was slavery? Genuinely wondering because it's puzzling to me why anyone today would be trying to make like this had little to do with slavery.

[rbk mama]

46 minutes ago, Susan in TX said:

 

https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Abraham Lincoln

 

I'm not following how this supports the conclusion that the Civil War was not primarily about the South fighting to preserve their right to own slaves. There were other reasons - sure, but the war was primarily about the right to enslave others. It does point out that Lincoln is not the wonderful savior many think he is. For more evidence of that look at how he treated the Indigenous peoples.

[rbk mama]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

That quote is from a letter written after the Emancipation Proclamation had already been written. Lincoln himself was not as equality-minded as he is often portrayed, but it doesn't change that the most pressing "states' right" that the south was agitating over and wanting to withdraw from the union over was the right to own slaves and for new states added to the union to be able to be slave holding states as well. I don't know why there would be a desire today to pretend that wasn't the case. What right is it that you think states wanted to secede over? What would be the reason for not wanting to say it was slavery? Genuinely wondering because it's puzzling to me why anyone today would be trying to make like this had little to do with slavery.

One reason to make little of the role of slavery then is to protect the feelings of the South, to let them romanticize their past - as in that book description - to think of their past as a noble fight for their God-give rights, all with God on their side. Another reason is to make little of continued oppression and injustice today. Let's just pretend it was never a real thing.

[Ellie]

2 hours ago, rbk mama said:

One reason to make little of the role of slavery then is to protect the feelings of the South, to let them romanticize their past - as in that book description - to think of their past as a noble fight for their God-give rights, all with God on their side. Another reason is to make little of continued oppression and injustice today. Let's just pretend it was never a real thing.

I promise that believing it was States' rights has nothing to do with oppression and injustice today.

[KSera]

15 minutes ago, Ellie said:

I promise that believing it was States' rights has nothing to do with oppression and injustice today.

States' rights for what, though?

Edited May 13, 2022 by KSera
typo

[Ellie]

31 minutes ago, KSera said:

States' rights for what, though?

For everything.

[rbk mama]

7 hours ago, Ellie said:

I promise that believing it was States' rights has nothing to do with oppression and injustice today.

Dishonesty about history is always linked to injustice today. In this case, white supremacy is behind both.

[rbk mama]

11 hours ago, Ellie said:

For everything.

From this link: "the breaking point of the States' Rights argument was the issue of slavery"  And, "Most white Southerners also feared that an end to their entire way of life was at hand. Many were desperate for one last chance to preserve the slave labor system and saw secession as the only way."

[LauraClark]

17 hours ago, rbk mama said:

From this link: "the breaking point of the States' Rights argument was the issue of slavery"  And, "Most white Southerners also feared that an end to their entire way of life was at hand. Many were desperate for one last chance to preserve the slave labor system and saw secession as the only way."

I didn't read this article, but just based on quote #1 it sounds like it is arguing that, while slavery was the main cause, there were other causes ("the breaking point" implies that there were other things leading up to it). I think it is absolutely important to teach our kids that the main cause was slavery; however, this war was composed of many many individuals-people are complex and do things for many number of reasons. To put it as the cause was either 'A' or 'B' misses that complexity-it can absolutely be mostly 'A', but also 'B', 'C', etc. I don't think saying that diminishes the horror of slavery.

[KSera]

5 hours ago, LauraClark said:

I didn't read this article, but just based on quote #1 it sounds like it is arguing that, while slavery was the main cause, there were other causes ("the breaking point" implies that there were other things leading up to it). I think it is absolutely important to teach our kids that the main cause was slavery; however, this war was composed of many many individuals-people are complex and do things for many number of reasons. To put it as the cause was either 'A' or 'B' misses that complexity-it can absolutely be mostly 'A', but also 'B', 'C', etc. I don't think saying that diminishes the horror of slavery.

The problem is that most people who say the cause was “states’ rights” are unwilling to say that slavery was the primary one at issue but there were also some other things. They seem to want to make slavery just a minor, unimportant part of it, and I don’t know why. Especially since it’s not like any of them were actually involved or responsible for slavery or the civil war. Why defend it now?

[rbk mama]

5 hours ago, LauraClark said:

I didn't read this article, but just based on quote #1 it sounds like it is arguing that, while slavery was the main cause, there were other causes ("the breaking point" implies that there were other things leading up to it). I think it is absolutely important to teach our kids that the main cause was slavery; however, this war was composed of many many individuals-people are complex and do things for many number of reasons. To put it as the cause was either 'A' or 'B' misses that complexity-it can absolutely be mostly 'A', but also 'B', 'C', etc. I don't think saying that diminishes the horror of slavery.

Its kind of like if Sam murdered my daughter, but I also didn't like the way his breath smelled, or his rude way of talking and interrupting others, or his narcissistic personality, and one person said I didn't like Sam because he murdered my daughter. And another person said - NO, she didn't like Sam for many reasons, not just that! You would say to that second person - that is bizarre and twisted - of course the main thing wrong with Sam was that he murdered someone! When you want to say that the Civil war was primarily about "States rights" and NOT about slavery, you are absolutely minimizing the horror of slavery.

[Slache]

13 minutes ago, KSera said:

The problem is that most people who say the cause was “states’ rights” are unwilling to say that slavery was the primary one at issue but there were also some other things. They seem to want to make slavery just a minor, unimportant part of it, and I don’t know why. Especially since it’s not like any of them were actually involved or responsible for slavery or the civil war. Why defend it now?

Probably because they are still for that side. You still see Confederate flags and "The south will rise again" bumper stickers. Maybe those individuals are affraid of being seen as racist and think that minimumizing that aspect makes them look better. Totally guessing.

[Farrar]

On 5/11/2022 at 11:30 AM, Slache said:

 I actually agree with the confederacy on every issue but slavery. 

This is like saying someone agrees with the Nazis on everything but the murder of the Jews. Enslavement of other humans and violence embedded in that system was the cornerstone of every aspect of life in the south.

The racism in this thread is horrifying. Revisionist historical fiction to get a different POV? The war was really about state's rights? Good people fought on the "wrong side"? You've all been brainwashed by Daughters of the Confederacy propaganda.

[Farrar]

3 minutes ago, Slache said:

Probably because they are still for that side. You still see Confederate flags and "The south will rise again" bumper stickers. Maybe those individuals are affraid of being seen as racist and think that minimumizing that aspect makes them look better. Totally guessing.

They are racist.

[Slache]

5 minutes ago, Farrar said:

This is like saying someone agrees with the Nazis on everything but the murder of the Jews. Enslavement of other humans and violence embedded in that system was the cornerstone of every aspect of life in the south.

The racism in this thread is horrifying. Revisionist historical fiction to get a different POV? The war was really about state's rights? Good people fought on the "wrong side"? You've all been brainwashed by Daughters of the Confederacy propaganda.

I think states should have the right to make their own choices, but that gets taken away when they are denying the rights of the people. I have never associated with or even seen anything relating to Daughter's of the Confederacy.

[Sneezyone]

4 hours ago, Slache said:

I think states should have the right to make their own choices, but that gets taken away when they are denying the rights of the people. I have never associated with or even seen anything relating to Daughter's of the Confederacy.

DoC talking points were imbedded, entrenched into lost cause mythology and school textbooks throughout the U.S.  before we were ever born. Just because it’s no longer distributed by leaflet-bearing women in bustles doesn’t make its origin any less plain. https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Daughters-of-the-Confederacy

If you find yourself blending in with these women, you might be a racist.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

Somehow I couldn’t help but think of this thread when I read this this morning.

We cannot be normalizing racism. It’s not just wrong, it’s dangerous. 
 

Eta: And this. This one is probably even more to the point here:

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by KSera

[maize]

On 5/14/2022 at 9:23 AM, Farrar said:

Good people fought on the "wrong side"? .

There are decent, generally "good" people on every side in pretty much every war, conflict, or disagreement.

We do need to be able to see and understand that.

There were "good people" among the armies of Nazi Germany.

There are "good people" in the Russian armies invading Ukraine.

There are certainly good people who disagree with me or you or anyone else on political platforms and candidates.

People are people. Rarely heroic. Often confused. Frequently selfish. Unexpectedly generous. Sometimes manipulated.

Mostly just trying to get by and find a path forward in the mess that is life 

[KSera]

33 minutes ago, maize said:

There are decent, generally "good" people on every side in pretty much every war, conflict, or disagreement.

We do need to be able to see and understand that.

There were "good people" among the armies of Nazi Germany.

There are "good people" in the Russian armies invading Ukraine.

There are certainly good people who disagree with me or you or anyone else on political platforms and candidates.

People are people. Rarely heroic. Often confused. Frequently selfish. Unexpectedly generous. Sometimes manipulated.

Mostly just trying to get by and find a path forward in the mess that is life 

I'm not certain what the underlying meaning of this is. Good people can get wrapped up in bad things, but the bad things are still bad things and should be called out as such. Bad things don't get a pass because there were some otherwise good people who got sucked into them.

[maize]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

I'm not certain what the underlying meaning of this is. Good people can get wrapped up in bad things, but the bad things are still bad things and should be called out as such. Bad things don't get a pass because there were some otherwise good people who got sucked into them.

I don't disagree with any of that.

The poster I quoted was using the statement that good people fought for the wrong side as direct evidence of racism.

That's nonsense.

Acknowledging that people are complicated and life is complicated and that yes, good people do get pulled into fighting for bad causes has nothing to do with being racist.

Edited May 15, 2022 by maize

[Ellie]

22 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

DoC talking points were imbedded, entrenched into lost cause mythology and school textbooks throughout the U.S.  before we were ever born. Just because it’s no longer distributed by leaflet-bearing women in bustles doesn’t make its origin any less plain. https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Daughters-of-the-Confederacy

If you find yourself blending in with these women, you might be a racist.

You could post the link the actual UDC website.

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, maize said:

Acknowledging that people are complicated and life is complicated and that yes, good people do get pulled into fighting for bad causes has nothing to do with being racist.

They do, but continuing to support the wrong side long after the conflict is over and was clearly for a bad cause is a different thing. There’s a massive difference between someone who fought on the side of the Nazis during World War II and one who defends them now. 

[maize]

37 minutes ago, KSera said:

They do, but continuing to support the wrong side long after the conflict is over and was clearly for a bad cause is a different thing. There’s a massive difference between someone who fought on the side of the Nazis during World War II and one who defends them now. 

There's also a difference between defending the cause of the Nazis and acknowledging that individual people caught up in that cause had complex motivations.

The second isn't evidence of the first.

[rbk mama]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

They do, but continuing to support the wrong side long after the conflict is over and was clearly for a bad cause is a different thing. There’s a massive difference between someone who fought on the side of the Nazis during World War II and one who defends them now. 

Germany and the US are hugely different in this regard. There are no memorials to Nazi's in Germany, but we still keep memorials to enslavers in the US. I'm sure racism lives on in Germany, but at least it is acknowledged as evil. It is still in the fabric of the US - as this thread reveals.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/germany-has-no-nazi-memorials/597937/

 

 

[rbk mama]

1 hour ago, maize said:

I don't disagree with any of that.

The poster I quoted was using the statement that good people fought for the wrong side as direct evidence of racism.

That's nonsense.

Acknowledging that people are complicated and life is complicated and that yes, good people do get pulled into fighting for bad causes has nothing to do with being racist.

 

1 hour ago, Ellie said:

You could post the link the actual UDC website.

 

I do think there is direct evidence of racism here. Sorry Daughters of the Confederacy - you do not get to claim that the Confederate flag no longer stands for slavery! Too late. And being dishonest about the Civil War, and choosing to remember it as not about slavery is racist. You have to ignore centuries of horrific violence to be proud of the Confederates who died to preserve their right to continue that violence. You have to believe that the Southern way of life that was dependent on that horrific evil was worth it. That is white supremacy. There is literally no way of reframing the Civil War to exclude slavery without embracing white supremacy.

Edited May 15, 2022 by rbk mama

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Ellie said:

You could post the link the actual UDC website.

The actual UDC Website is PROPAGANDA not fact, and very, very selective. Their role in shaping historical and current understanding of the Lost Cause myth is undisputed by historians and the racist legacy of that myth and the promotion thereof is well represented in this thread. Those who don’t know who the UDC/members IS/are and what they did, the morphing of their school-level contests and textbook crusades and bronze memorial erections (deliberate grotesque image) into white citizens counsels, etc. are either ignorant, stupid, or deluded. That is my most charitable spin.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

4 hours ago, maize said:

There's also a difference between defending the cause of the Nazis and acknowledging that individual people caught up in that cause had complex motivations.

The second isn't evidence of the first.

That is not what’s happening here. There are people, literally, defending the confederacy (and its ideals) writ large, not individual choices or people. People are plenty entitled to express those views just as I am entitled to label them for what I think they are (and I do not use the term lightly) …racist. Not in the hidden or subtle bias way that young people see things but in the old school, in your face, BLATANT way, that the UDC described it and sold it to them.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

This thread was already disturbing to me, but it has become increasingly so today. I didn’t expect to see multiple people leaping to the defense of Confederate Pride. That people are continuing to do so today, after the horrific white supremacist crime that occurred yesterday makes it all the more troubling 😢.