38 ms·

No reason they can't rename something more appropriate after Calhoun, like a dumpster or sewage plant or something.

wyldfire 10y ago
I wondered, "Why does GFK_of_xmaspast feel so strongly about this person?" I hadn't known (or recalled) anything about John C. Calhoun. Calhoun himself writes in 1837: > But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good. ... > Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe–look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse.
- CalChris 10y ago
  The Lost Cause tries to paint the Civil War as about States' Rights rather than slavery. This reinterpretation began immediately after the war, arguably by Robert E Lee himself. The War of Northern Aggression et cetera tries to paint the South as the victims. This revisionism avoids the text of the Constitution of the Confederate States, the writings of Calhoun, the 1860 census of South Carolina, the secession of the Southern States and the firing on Fort Sumter.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > This revisionism avoids the text of the Constitution of the Confederate States and the writings of Calhoun and the 1860 census of South Carolina. It avoids a lot more than that. The Confederacy themselves could have freed the slaves at any time.
  - brightball 10y ago
    Worthwhile piece of history whenever this comes up: http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/Events/CherokeeDeclarationofCauses(October28,1861).aspx http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/Events/Cherok... 6 months in when the south was winning
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      I'm not sure why that's relevant to the parent comment. It's also not particularly surprising if you consider the history of the Cherokee specifically (compared to other Native American tribes). The Cherokee tried to have diplomatic relations with the Union (the United States), and the US stabbed them in the back. Of course they'd want to break up the Union - it was the only shot they had at reclaiming their sovereignty.
      - brightball 10y ago
        He mentioned the lost cause narrative being something that was created after the war. That document goes into detail about a whole lot that was going on at the time that fit the "narrative". Civil War history is a hobby of mine that developed after the flag stuff a couple of years ago. There were so many factors that went into the conflict it's hard to even know where to begin. Snag a book on the economics of it sometime if you're interested though.
        lern_too_spel 10y ago
        It's pretty easy to know where to begin: slavery. Just look at the constitution of the CSA, which requires all member states to have slavery. How is that promoting states' rights? Or look at the ordinances of secession: https://www.google.com/amp/s/aliberalthinker.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/what-was-the-main-reason-for-confederate-secession-in-the-civil-war-again/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/aliberalthinker.wordpress.com/2.... To say the CSA was mainly formed on any issue other than slavery requires conspiracy theorist contortions.
        brightball 10y ago
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    Alternative facts have always been appealing to those on the wrong side of right.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      I hope I have not been misunderstood through my lack of clarity here: I am completely in agreement with CalChris (if you don't like what I wrote for other reasons, fair enough.)
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Calhoun himself writes in 1837: ... What do you mean to imply by this quote? It's horribly discriminatory and it's actually pro-slavery.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    That's the point, GP was wondering why some one would suggest nameing a sewer after Calhoun and found a quote from Calhoun himself (as opposed to some third party that could be accused of drinking haterade) showing him to be a human sewer.
    - Amezarak 10y ago
      I hope that history judges us more kindly than we judge history. There's no question that today, and for the best part of the past 150 years, we find Calhoun's views absolutely abhorrent and reprehensible. For us, there is no question about it. Calhoun, and most everyone else in human history, lived in a different time. We now "know" that slavery is inherently wrong, but Calhoun, for example, didn't see it that way. He literally believed he was doing a good thing. We now find that paternalistic, condescending, and abhorrent. Even in his own time, Calhoun's views were becoming outdated. But there is not, and never has been, an oracle anyone could consult to find the Truth about what is Good and Right. Even seemingly objective religious oracles of the Truth About Morality are subject to interpretation. We all had to muddle our own way through it. Our consciences were all formed by the society we lived in and, no doubt, by our self interest. I have no doubt that hundreds of years from now, when social norms have evolved in ways we can't imagine, people will find our views abhorrent and reprehensible too. I hope they do not dismiss us human sewers on that basis alone. At any rate, I think that when you dismiss figures of the past as human sewers, you overlook just how past atrocities happened, which makes it easier for them to happen in the here and now.
      - yedava 10y ago
        All one needed to do was ask the slaves whether they liked being slaves. Looks like some people did listen to the slaves and they found themselves on the right side of history. So you don't need to consult an Oracle. Listening helps.

I wondered, "Why does GFK_of_xmaspast feel so strongly about this person?" I hadn't known (or recalled) anything about John C. Calhoun. Calhoun himself writes in 1837: > But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good. ... > Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe–look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse.

CalChris 10y ago
The Lost Cause tries to paint the Civil War as about States' Rights rather than slavery. This reinterpretation began immediately after the war, arguably by Robert E Lee himself. The War of Northern Aggression et cetera tries to paint the South as the victims. This revisionism avoids the text of the Constitution of the Confederate States, the writings of Calhoun, the 1860 census of South Carolina, the secession of the Southern States and the firing on Fort Sumter.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > This revisionism avoids the text of the Constitution of the Confederate States and the writings of Calhoun and the 1860 census of South Carolina. It avoids a lot more than that. The Confederacy themselves could have freed the slaves at any time.
- brightball 10y ago
  Worthwhile piece of history whenever this comes up: http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/Events/CherokeeDeclarationofCauses(October28,1861).aspx http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/Events/Cherok... 6 months in when the south was winning
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    I'm not sure why that's relevant to the parent comment. It's also not particularly surprising if you consider the history of the Cherokee specifically (compared to other Native American tribes). The Cherokee tried to have diplomatic relations with the Union (the United States), and the US stabbed them in the back. Of course they'd want to break up the Union - it was the only shot they had at reclaiming their sovereignty.
    - brightball 10y ago
      He mentioned the lost cause narrative being something that was created after the war. That document goes into detail about a whole lot that was going on at the time that fit the "narrative". Civil War history is a hobby of mine that developed after the flag stuff a couple of years ago. There were so many factors that went into the conflict it's hard to even know where to begin. Snag a book on the economics of it sometime if you're interested though.
      - lern_too_spel 10y ago
        It's pretty easy to know where to begin: slavery. Just look at the constitution of the CSA, which requires all member states to have slavery. How is that promoting states' rights? Or look at the ordinances of secession: https://www.google.com/amp/s/aliberalthinker.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/what-was-the-main-reason-for-confederate-secession-in-the-civil-war-again/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/aliberalthinker.wordpress.com/2.... To say the CSA was mainly formed on any issue other than slavery requires conspiracy theorist contortions.
        brightball 10y ago
- mannykannot 10y ago
  Alternative facts have always been appealing to those on the wrong side of right.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    I hope I have not been misunderstood through my lack of clarity here: I am completely in agreement with CalChris (if you don't like what I wrote for other reasons, fair enough.)
hackuser 10y ago
> Calhoun himself writes in 1837: ... What do you mean to imply by this quote? It's horribly discriminatory and it's actually pro-slavery.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Avshalom 10y ago
  That's the point, GP was wondering why some one would suggest nameing a sewer after Calhoun and found a quote from Calhoun himself (as opposed to some third party that could be accused of drinking haterade) showing him to be a human sewer.
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    I hope that history judges us more kindly than we judge history. There's no question that today, and for the best part of the past 150 years, we find Calhoun's views absolutely abhorrent and reprehensible. For us, there is no question about it. Calhoun, and most everyone else in human history, lived in a different time. We now "know" that slavery is inherently wrong, but Calhoun, for example, didn't see it that way. He literally believed he was doing a good thing. We now find that paternalistic, condescending, and abhorrent. Even in his own time, Calhoun's views were becoming outdated. But there is not, and never has been, an oracle anyone could consult to find the Truth about what is Good and Right. Even seemingly objective religious oracles of the Truth About Morality are subject to interpretation. We all had to muddle our own way through it. Our consciences were all formed by the society we lived in and, no doubt, by our self interest. I have no doubt that hundreds of years from now, when social norms have evolved in ways we can't imagine, people will find our views abhorrent and reprehensible too. I hope they do not dismiss us human sewers on that basis alone. At any rate, I think that when you dismiss figures of the past as human sewers, you overlook just how past atrocities happened, which makes it easier for them to happen in the here and now.
    - yedava 10y ago
      All one needed to do was ask the slaves whether they liked being slaves. Looks like some people did listen to the slaves and they found themselves on the right side of history. So you don't need to consult an Oracle. Listening helps.