4 ms·

> Some people remain bitter. The kind of people who like to have arguments about history and historical figures continue to debate the matter It's a really str

by jabl 5y ago

> Some people remain bitter. The kind of people who like to have arguments about history and historical figures continue to debate the matter It's a really strange human quirk to get so worked up about historical events. Finland has these, yes, as excellently explained by the parent and parent's sibling comments. In the US you find people who get really really angry if somebody suggests that a civil war 150 years ago wasn't about slavery. Heck, you'll even find people who somehow identify with ancient Sparta, apparently based on watching that really terrible movie (or even more terrible successor movies), and thinking that Spartans were uniquely badass and honorable and whatnot.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
> In the US you find people who get really really angry if somebody suggests that a civil war 150 years ago wasn't about slavery. Yes, and denying the holocaust happened gets people upset for some reason too. Something about telling bare-faced lies, about easily confirmed historical facts, as a way to flaunt a political affiliation to a group that openly considers some people sub-human is strangely political for reasons no one can figure out.
- jabl 5y ago
  Well, I agree with that angle. I was more wondering about the opposing viewpoint, why do people get attached to a monstrous ideology and claim people under said banner did none of the things they historically did.
rat87 5y ago
> > Some people remain bitter. The kind of people who like to have arguments about history and historical figures continue to debate the matter > It's a really strange human quirk to get so worked up about historical events. Finland has these, yes, as excellently explained by the parent and parent's sibling comments. In the US you find people who get really really angry if somebody suggests that a civil war 150 years ago wasn't about slavery. Because 1. It was totally because of slavery 2. Claiming it wasn't because of slavery tends to downplay historical racism and tends to be associated with modern day racism
- jabl 5y ago
  Er, right, yes, I agree with you. It seems I got tangled up in my own explanations, sorry about that. That's what you get for writing a comment in a hurry. What I meant to say there seems to be a fraction of the population in the US who really think the US civil war was about "states rights" or whatever, and not slavery, and they get really angry if anybody suggests otherwise.
- johnyzee 5y ago
  Weird. It was verifiably not about slavery - at least not from the beginning. It was not an issue until well into the war. Also, I completely disagree with your interpretation. Recognizing that people at that time, on both sides, did not actually care all that much about the plight of the slaves, does not 'downplay historical racism', quite the contrary. It goes a long way to explain why blacks, even after emancipation, never really got a fair chance in America, to this day. I am not an American and have no dog in the fight, for what it's worth.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    You're misinformed. Read any current, mainstream work of scholarship on the issue. EDIT: this is a bit short, but honestly, without any rancor, mainstream scholarship is pretty unanimous on this topic. Popular discourse is more divided.
  - pchristensen 5y ago
    I was a little startled by your statement, so I charitably tried to figure out where it was coming from. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederat...) said that the South seceded to protect slavery, but the North attacked the South to put down the rebellion, not necessarily to free slaves. So I would say that you were technically right that the Civil War was not declared to end slavery, but the overall conflict (and 30+ years leading up to it) was unquestionably about slavery.
    - t-3 5y ago
zokier 5y ago
> It's a really strange human quirk to get so worked up about historical events You have to keep in mind that Finnish Civil War is not some far history; it is something that touched peoples grand-parents. Somewhat naturally something hitting that close can still be pretty touchy subject
kaitai 5y ago
It's not really a "strange human quirk". Last time I was at a gathering where some older friends had one beer too many and started getting heated about the war, it's because they were talking about family members who were tied to a fence and left to die. Pretty brutal stuff. To you it's a historical event. To my 80-year-old friend it's his uncle, and the trauma his mother carried with her having to take her brother's body off the fence. I am not that old. When I introduced my now-spouse to my father, my father commented that now-spouse's family was from a town that was "a little Red, eh?" I'm quite aware that my family and my spouse's family were on different sides of the civil war. It's embedded in where our grandparents lived and the roles they had in life. It's embedded in their economic lives and the opportunities they had. Ironically, since my family was rural landowners, the children had to scatter and find different livelihoods, while spouse's family (pushed into factory work earlier) actually ended up more advantageously positioned as life moved to the cities... You call it history; I call it great-grandparents, three of whom I was lucky enough to get to know.

by jabl 5y ago

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

> In the US you find people who get really really angry if somebody suggests that a civil war 150 years ago wasn't about slavery. Yes, and denying the holocaust happened gets people upset for some reason too. Something about telling bare-faced lies, about easily confirmed historical facts, as a way to flaunt a political affiliation to a group that openly considers some people sub-human is strangely political for reasons no one can figure out.

jabl 5y ago
Well, I agree with that angle. I was more wondering about the opposing viewpoint, why do people get attached to a monstrous ideology and claim people under said banner did none of the things they historically did.

rat87 5y ago

> > Some people remain bitter. The kind of people who like to have arguments about history and historical figures continue to debate the matter > It's a really strange human quirk to get so worked up about historical events. Finland has these, yes, as excellently explained by the parent and parent's sibling comments. In the US you find people who get really really angry if somebody suggests that a civil war 150 years ago wasn't about slavery. Because 1. It was totally because of slavery 2. Claiming it wasn't because of slavery tends to downplay historical racism and tends to be associated with modern day racism

jabl 5y ago
Er, right, yes, I agree with you. It seems I got tangled up in my own explanations, sorry about that. That's what you get for writing a comment in a hurry. What I meant to say there seems to be a fraction of the population in the US who really think the US civil war was about "states rights" or whatever, and not slavery, and they get really angry if anybody suggests otherwise.
johnyzee 5y ago
Weird. It was verifiably not about slavery - at least not from the beginning. It was not an issue until well into the war. Also, I completely disagree with your interpretation. Recognizing that people at that time, on both sides, did not actually care all that much about the plight of the slaves, does not 'downplay historical racism', quite the contrary. It goes a long way to explain why blacks, even after emancipation, never really got a fair chance in America, to this day. I am not an American and have no dog in the fight, for what it's worth.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  You're misinformed. Read any current, mainstream work of scholarship on the issue. EDIT: this is a bit short, but honestly, without any rancor, mainstream scholarship is pretty unanimous on this topic. Popular discourse is more divided.
- pchristensen 5y ago
  I was a little startled by your statement, so I charitably tried to figure out where it was coming from. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederat...) said that the South seceded to protect slavery, but the North attacked the South to put down the rebellion, not necessarily to free slaves. So I would say that you were technically right that the Civil War was not declared to end slavery, but the overall conflict (and 30+ years leading up to it) was unquestionably about slavery.
  - t-3 5y ago

zokier 5y ago

> It's a really strange human quirk to get so worked up about historical events You have to keep in mind that Finnish Civil War is not some far history; it is something that touched peoples grand-parents. Somewhat naturally something hitting that close can still be pretty touchy subject

kaitai 5y ago

It's not really a "strange human quirk". Last time I was at a gathering where some older friends had one beer too many and started getting heated about the war, it's because they were talking about family members who were tied to a fence and left to die. Pretty brutal stuff. To you it's a historical event. To my 80-year-old friend it's his uncle, and the trauma his mother carried with her having to take her brother's body off the fence. I am not that old. When I introduced my now-spouse to my father, my father commented that now-spouse's family was from a town that was "a little Red, eh?" I'm quite aware that my family and my spouse's family were on different sides of the civil war. It's embedded in where our grandparents lived and the roles they had in life. It's embedded in their economic lives and the opportunities they had. Ironically, since my family was rural landowners, the children had to scatter and find different livelihoods, while spouse's family (pushed into factory work earlier) actually ended up more advantageously positioned as life moved to the cities... You call it history; I call it great-grandparents, three of whom I was lucky enough to get to know.