1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Confederate soldiers=terrorists

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by novelist_wannabe, Apr 11, 2010.

  1. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    This guy lays out a case ...

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/index.html?hpt=C1
     
  2. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Have you noticed a big wave of revisionist history sweeping across the South with regard to the Civil War, nw?

    My lovely Southern gentleman father, who I love dearly, has become a fan of these stupid-ass (sorry) quasi-fiction Newt Gingrich books about "what if" the Confederates had won X battle.

    And no, I haven't read them, so maybe I don't have the right to call them stupid ass, but I can't think of a bigger waste of time than romanticizing and putting "dream" spins on battles that the Confederacy LOST!

    Anyhoo........... What's the fascination here?

    I think the column you posted might be a bit of an overreaction to the revisionism.
     
  3. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    I think there's always a bit of fascination over "What If?"s in history. Putting on my nerd hat here, there's a book called "Guns of the South" in which South Africans (from the apartheid era) traveled back in time to give the Confederacy AK-47s and other equipment in an effort to change history so the U.S. would be an ally for segregation in the future.

    That said, this geek story isn't exactly Southerners wondering how things could have been different, if only . . .

    Again putting on my nerd hat, that column reminds me of a line from a . . um, illustrated story I read as a kid: "Terrorists! That's what the big army calls the little army!" I would guess that during our noble War For Independence, the British thought we were terrorists.
     
  4. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Based on your thoughts here, I'm guessing you never read any kind of fiction because it's a waste of time?
     
  5. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    Huge logic fail
     
  6. Bob Crotchet

    Bob Crotchet Member

    "Alternate history" is an old and established genre. (See "The Man in the High Castle" from 1962, Harry Turtledove, etc.) Doesn't do anything for me, but it has been popular for years. ... And I still live in the South and have seen no such "wave of revisionist history."
     
  7. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    Sure I've noticed. And I think you're right ... the whole exercise seems pointless. I found this intriguing and inflammatory nonetheless.
     
  8. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    What about this episode involving the Virginia governor and the "oops I forgot about the whole slavery thing" for which he had to apologize?

    Maybe revisionism isn't the right word... maybe it's some Southerners' attempts to romanticize something that has no business being romanticized.

    From what my Dad describes in the Gingrich books, Robert E. Lee is portrayed as a gentleman and genius of the highest order, while Grant is an asshole who got lucky.

    Am I wrong?

    ** Please keep in mind... I love the South. It's my home. Everytime I go back there, I feel the damn power of the "red Earth." I will and have defended the South many times here for what it really is. I love my dad more than anything. But my dad raised me to call bullshit when I see it -- even when it's coming from him.
     
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    As rhetorical exercises go, the opposite side was a whole lot better:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/opinion/02horwitz.html?_r=1

    It's a very compelling case that, at least by current definitions, the terrorist label applies to John Brown and the abolitionists. Which goes to show the impossibility of retroactively applying these terms.
     
  10. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    Oh boy. I can see where this thread has great potential for being locked. Since I'm from California originally I don't share the nostalgia that some people do here about the Confederacy. Martin wrote a column. It's his opinion. Nothing more. Come on, the Civil War ended 135 years ago.
     
  11. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Since April is Confederate History month this seems like an appropriate topic of discussion.
    The Governor of Virginia Robert McDonnell, actually issued a proclamation recognizing April as Confederate History Month. In it he celebrated those “who fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth” and wrote of the importance of understanding “the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War.”

    As time goes by I become less and less impressed with this guy that the Republican party is touting as a possible national candidate.
     
  12. crimsonace

    crimsonace Active Member

    Even Winston Churchill's book "The Great Republic" has a "what if the South had won" chapter.

    A lot of historians like to ask the "what if?" question. What if the Brits had won the Revolutionary War? Would the U.S. be provinces of Canada that stop at the Mississippi River? Would we be 3-4 different countries today (the SW being Mexico, the Oregon Country being a separate country, the Louisiana Purchase area being independent?) What if Hitler hadn't been so deranged and let his generals wage World War II? What if the Japanese had brought invasion troops to Pearl Harbor?

    Because of the nature of the Civil War, it's probably the most-romanticized of the wars. It is certainly the most-reenacted, and among military history buffs, seems to be the most heavily-studied. However, it's likely the eventual outcome would have happened -- the Union simply had too many men, too many resources and too much of an industrial base for the Confederacy, although the Confederates had some incredibly strong generals.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page