The country was expanding, and the North didn't want slavery to be allowed in the new territories, which would eventually strangle slavery out of existence as well as giving more incentives for escape.
The South was also worried about a majority of free states making political decisions which would likely not be in favor of slave holding states.
The entire issue on states rights was about states rights to own slaves.
Finally, the South was beginning to collapse economically because they couldn't keep up with the technology and progress of the North.
To act like slavery wasn't the issue, that it was "just" states rights, misses the point entirely.
Overall, and for the most part, it was indeed about slavery. What most people know, for the most part, is that it was about slavery. Very often, those claiming that the use of the Confederate Flag isn't about slavery are abusing the benefit of the doubt, abusing the Socratic process. Anyone claiming it was "just" about states rights is definitely abusing the benefit of the doubt and the socratic process.
But the existence of those who use it for immoral purposes, who abuse the benefit of the doubt, the socratic process - doesn't make those who have legitimate uses wrong.
I think that waxing poetic about the Confederacy is un-American. Those fuckers /left/ the United States of America, willingly dispatriated, and got the luxury of merely having their asses kicked in general but not specific and forcibly repatriated - and the vast majority of them abused the Socratic method by claiming State's Rights and Individual Rights while fucking ignoring the rights of the northern states to ban slavery and free slaves, and ignoring the individual human's right - as set in the Constitution - to be /free/.
The Constitution only mentions one crime, and it is Treason - and allows Congress to set the punishment for it, which has been (since very early on) - capital punishment. Their fucking society refused to see it for what it was.
People who advocate an active return to a society where one class of people oppressed another class of people need to be argued down at every step of the way.
As to who defines legitimacy: That is defined by consensus of rational minds.
It is not defined by a critical theory of institutional bigotry, because a critical theory of institutional bigotry has no critical check on its' scope - there is no limit on what it may claim is a bigoted use, and is not open to rational discourse. It provides no way to remediate an offensive usage. It merely claims that any usage of a term - when that term is perceived by one group to be offensive, or indicative of a power imbalance - must be offensive or indicative of a power imbalance whether it is or not - and provides no method to evaluate whether there actually is a power imbalance other than the assumption that usage by an Other is an inherent power imbalance.
All communication occurs dependent upon the ability and intent of one person to sign, the ability of the sign to be perceived, and the ability and intent of another person to comprehend that sign.
If the receiver has only intent to comprehend a sign as meaning one - and only one - meaning, then the intent and ability of the sender is irrelevant. This is pareidolia.
If the sender finds a context in which they may plausibly deny a specific intent of a sign - though meaning it - then the ability and intent of the receiver is irrelevant; This is cryptography.
If the receiver can be said to intend to determine the meaning of a sign in context - rather than rely upon static definitions - and the sender's intent is consonant with what the receiver determines, and the sender's intent is - to a rational person - consonant with what the receiver perceives, then communication has occurred.
It is incredible how often two people can speak the same language yet communication fails to happen on the scope of, for example, shemale (elsewhere in this thread) tripping on the phrase "Free speech absolutist" to call /me/ a racist. I admit to many defects of personality, but racism is far from one of them. I am a sentient human being, and expect other human beings to be treated fairly and with respect. I am a humanist.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-21 09:39 pm (UTC)The country was expanding, and the North didn't want slavery to be allowed in the new territories, which would eventually strangle slavery out of existence as well as giving more incentives for escape.
The South was also worried about a majority of free states making political decisions which would likely not be in favor of slave holding states.
The entire issue on states rights was about states rights to own slaves.
Finally, the South was beginning to collapse economically because they couldn't keep up with the technology and progress of the North.
To act like slavery wasn't the issue, that it was "just" states rights, misses the point entirely.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-21 09:53 pm (UTC)But the existence of those who use it for immoral purposes, who abuse the benefit of the doubt, the socratic process - doesn't make those who have legitimate uses wrong.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-21 09:56 pm (UTC)Example off the top of my head: the Black Power movement was considered subversive as fuckall but waxing poetic about the Confederacy is not.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-22 01:39 am (UTC)The Constitution only mentions one crime, and it is Treason - and allows Congress to set the punishment for it, which has been (since very early on) - capital punishment. Their fucking society refused to see it for what it was.
People who advocate an active return to a society where one class of people oppressed another class of people need to be argued down at every step of the way.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-22 01:55 am (UTC)It is not defined by a critical theory of institutional bigotry, because a critical theory of institutional bigotry has no critical check on its' scope - there is no limit on what it may claim is a bigoted use, and is not open to rational discourse. It provides no way to remediate an offensive usage. It merely claims that any usage of a term - when that term is perceived by one group to be offensive, or indicative of a power imbalance - must be offensive or indicative of a power imbalance whether it is or not - and provides no method to evaluate whether there actually is a power imbalance other than the assumption that usage by an Other is an inherent power imbalance.
All communication occurs dependent upon the ability and intent of one person to sign, the ability of the sign to be perceived, and the ability and intent of another person to comprehend that sign.
If the receiver has only intent to comprehend a sign as meaning one - and only one - meaning, then the intent and ability of the sender is irrelevant. This is pareidolia.
If the sender finds a context in which they may plausibly deny a specific intent of a sign - though meaning it - then the ability and intent of the receiver is irrelevant; This is cryptography.
If the receiver can be said to intend to determine the meaning of a sign in context - rather than rely upon static definitions - and the sender's intent is consonant with what the receiver determines, and the sender's intent is - to a rational person - consonant with what the receiver perceives, then communication has occurred.
It is incredible how often two people can speak the same language yet communication fails to happen on the scope of, for example, shemale (elsewhere in this thread) tripping on the phrase "Free speech absolutist" to call /me/ a racist. I admit to many defects of personality, but racism is far from one of them. I am a sentient human being, and expect other human beings to be treated fairly and with respect. I am a humanist.