Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Craig234
Ever notice that every time someone from the south says the Civil War was about state rights as much as slavery that everyone from the north just looks at them with confusion.
No, I don't. I notice that they are familiar with the states rights issue, and that ProfJohn has yet another fallacious assumption, and bias - not portraying the phrase 'states rights' having a very long history as a cover for racism. Just as virtually no advocate for benning gay marriage will say they have anything against gays, but hide behind the 'defense of marriage' phrase, people long fought equal rights for blacks using the phrase 'states rights', which became simply a code word for the racist position.
The typical states rights advocate wasn't a constitutional scholar but a white guy in a mob with a rock trying to block the court-ordered admission of the first black to a school.
Maybe you need to re-read what I said.
I never claimed that the ?states right? argument had any merit. I just mentioned that it exists and is an example of people from the Northeast having a very different view of things than people in the south.
If you have a liberal education, like you and I both seem to have, then you look at people saying that as if they are a bunch of racists running around with sheets in their closet and you ignore even the slightest possibility that they may have a valid point.
No, PJ, my point was that you run around with false straw men for your positions - take that one, that's now how I view it - in fact, I have repeatedly said I'm in favor of states having the righ to secede. On states' rights more broadly, I recognize everything from the fact that it's a legitimate and important topic, that sometimes the states' rights are violated, and the history of the phrase 'states' rights' being used as a codeword for racists.
In other words, you're making a false attack on the side against yours, and you cited states' rights as an equal, valid point of view without any note of the history of abuse.
However, we tend to ignore the fact that when the country was founded it was up to each state to decide if they were a slave state or a free state. As late as 1854 congress was passing laws that allowed settlers to decide if a territory would or would not allow slavery within its boarders. While we may find slavery an aberration we can not deny the fact that prior to the civil war it had been up to each state to decide the issue of slavery. Thus slavery was a ?state right? and the war to end slavery was a war against this ?right.? Whether the people who make this argument are or are not racists is totally irrelevant to the argument.
I thought you understood the history of the civil war more, that it's even less about slavery than that - it's a broader issue that the northern states had economic interests differing from those of the south, and the south felt that the north abused its power as a 'tyranny of the majority' to oppress them, and they felt that the election of Lincoln was the culmination of their having zero say in the national affairs, and that they'd be better off leaving the US.
I wasn't going into the issue that you can say those who supported slavery were racist, but rather the history of the abuse of phrase around the 1960's civil rights movement.
You say that the phrase being used as a cover for racism is not relevant, I disagree; you chose 'states' rights' as your shining example of how the right is treated unfairly, without any note of why the phrase is seen with such hostility, implying instead, wrongly, that the problem is the north simply not knowing about the Southerners' view of the issue of states' rights.
You say you never claimed the southerners' position has any merit, just that it's diffferent. Well, if that were the case, it'd be fine - but it's an argument against treating the southerners' view as 'separate but equal', and instead covering the other view as the legitimate one. Why would you cover a 'wrong' view as something other than wrong? That's part of newspapers' job, to sort out the truth among conflicting stories and views, sometimes.
Should the papers continue to report the views of those who think the 'umbrella man' at the Kennedy assassination was signalling the team to shoot, even after it's now known that the man was simply protesting Kennedy policies, since he's been identified, investigated and interviewed? Should they report the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the Clintons as murderers beliefs, as equal to the other views?
When you move towards the more opinion-based views, should the KKK get treated as an equally reasonable organization as the NAACP, should it not get called bigoted, racist, hate-based when it is? Should it get the same amount of coverage on race issues as the mainstream views? The southerners' 'states' right' views deserve coverage initially when they are common enough to affect the story, but neet not get continuing coverage as being just as valid as others' views once exposed for what they are.
Yes, that opens the door to possible errors of bias, but it's the only way to do things, really, the paper does provide a level of editing to turn the chaos of millions of people's opinions into summarized info. They do make some value judgements, and there will be people with extreme views who protest the description of their positions. When the groups in society are at odds, any editorial decision who is 'right' will get protested by some. That doesn't make it 'bias', which implies unfairness.
But let's take a look at an example of bias - yours, in defending Fox News.
You said:
It is the same with Fox News. Your ?proof? of their right wing view looks like good journalism to someone on the right.
In the last couple of days, Fox News took an audio clip of Michelle Obama saying that for the first time in her life, she is really proud of her country, and theyaired it with an edit that silenced most of the word "really". You can listen to the two clips, and it's clear how it was edited. The original "really proud of her country" and the Fox version "r proud of her country". That's an atrocious, intentional, lie against their enemy, the democrats.
So that piece of evidence, among thousands that provide 'proof' of their bias, you say the right calls "good journalism"? You have some explaining to do.
The fact is, their outrageous lying won't affect many at all on the right, who lack the values and principles to stand up to their wrongs, and will keep following Fox loyally.
Facebook
Twitter