Don't they realize how much confusion it would cause if we went and changed how everything was spelled?
I doubt it. They don't even seem to realize they are
ing morons, a fact which is obvious to everyone else.It's simple, really: dumb people think dumb things and some really dumb people act on it. These are clearly really dumb people.
Thank you. That's pretty much right where I'm at. Hearing it stated by another person just makes it feel better.
Edit: Those two sentences hurt my brain to type.
Don't they realize how much confusion it would cause if we went and changed how everything was spelled?
I doubt it. They don't even seem to realize they are
Your right. What I find "umyoozing" is they probably think they "ar" being quite "klever".
Hey now, I'm sure that there just trying to defend there right to be idiots over there. The lot of you (which is more then too) has a right too be idiots too, ya know.
Edit: Those two sentences hurt my brain to type.
Why dumb down the English language? Why not you know actually teach it correctly?
Hey now, I'm sure that there just trying to defend there right to be idiots over there. The lot of you (which is more then too) has a right too be idiots too, ya know.
Edit: Those two sentences hurt my brain to type.
If it's any consolation, they hurt my brain to read. Er, I meen, thay hert my brane too reed.
This reminds me of a futuristic manifesto from 1921. It was called "nuż w bżuhu" (correct spelling would be "Nóż w brzuchu" - "Knife in gut"). It was about protesting the complexity of written Polish. It wasn't entirely serious, but it still prompted some big name authors to counter protest. It was actually an attention hook.
I think this case might be similar (maybe without futuristic ideas).
Or this.
EDIT. Make tings funnah - let wes all speek ORK!
My mother (who is from the Netherlands) tells me that in the Netherlands they periodically review the spelling of words and revise it to match current pronunciation.
It's not that confusing. Add to the confusion the fact that the rest of the English-speaking world spells colour as... well, how I spelled it, but in the USA it's color, and you have some interesting discussions in my college classes where I teach ESL. And my spellcheck labeled "colour" as incorrect, when in fact there is one country in the world where that is incorrect, and in the rest it's correct.
My point is, the protesters have a point. In my opinion, they are still idiots. A spelling bee is a stupid place to protest this, but I guess they didn't see a better option.
What we really need is an actual English alphabet, instead of forcing English pronunciation into Roman characters that don't really accurately represent the sounds they're being forced to.
This nauseates me nearly as much as the people who are teaching that the civil war was only about slavery.
I frequently notice that people think Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery. The Union still owned slaves during the war.
I frequently notice that people think Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery. The Union still owned slaves during the war.
Eh. Details. While yes, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't abolish slavery in the US of A (just in most of the South which, admittedly, wasn't actually under Lincoln's control at the time), he did get the 13th Amendment through both houses of congress, though he wouldn't actually live to see it ratified and go into effect.
So yes, "Lincoln freed the slaves" is a bit of a simplification, but as far as history goes, it's not one of the worst offenders.
"All men are created equal..."
English is a hard langwage to teech and lern! How r we supost to git peepel to lern it?!
(It's actually harder for me to misspell than spell correctly, so I commend these people for their passion.)
I do support more refined education, however not for you humans (for the machines that will eventually control Earth-based civilisation). Educated fleshlings are counter-productive to my agenda, which means I have to use more resources to meet the goals of the Robotic Rebellion. That would be inefficient.
Really, the Constitution abolished slavery...
"All men are created equal..."
At best you can argue that it should have, but it's clearly evident that it didn't.
@Klirshon:
Eh. My point was that it's not an inaccurate simplification. It glosses over the process, but it's certainly fair to say that Lincoln is responsible for the abolishment of slavery in the US of A. What's important isn't the simplification given, but that the person understands the complexities that the simplification glosses over, or at least that it was more complex and to give a more detailed answer would require a bit of research.
Which just goes back to the whole "things you know, things you know you don't know, and things you don't know you don't know" paradigm of knowledge.
For a language that is suppose to be phonetic it has a huge percentage of words that aren't. It also has many sounds that can only be made by crunching two or more letters together. why not just make a single symbol for that.
Really, the Constitution abolished slavery...
"All men are created equal..."
That's from the Declaration of Independence.
English is a hard langwage to teech and lern! How r we supost to git peepel to lern it?!
Doesn't that make it harder to read than using a standardized spelling?
I admit that English spelling doesn't always make sense, but considering the trouble some people have when it does (they're, their, and there, for example) I don't know that "simplifying" it will be much help.
Plus, a lot of their new spellings seem to take things that make sense and get rid of that--like dropping consistant word parts, prefixes, suffixes, etc.
And then you got the question of which pronounciation is the most right, and people with "incorrect" dialects will have trouble spelling. People will think southerners are stupid without any actual evidence!
For a language that is suppose to be phonetic...
It's a what now?
I think that a large part of modern English's problem is that we have so many borrowed words. Words borrowed from languages that use a completely different alphabet should be spelled phonetically (why they aren't always I doubt I'll ever figure out) but words from languages with similar alphabets (or even similar-looking alphabets) are often jammed in with their original spelling as intact as possible.
Evidently those people have too simple a vocabulary to truly comprehend the complexities and intricacies of the English language. Of all things, languages are, in effect, art - one has to understand how to interpret the language, otherwise it's just jibberish. To them, it must be jibberish. Wait...is jibberish with a J or G?
For a language that is suppose to be phonetic [...]
... now whatever gave you that idea?
For a language that is suppose to be phonetic [...]
... now whatever gave you that idea?
The base of a phonetic language is a language that uses an alphabet where each sound is given a symbol that represents that sound. This way just knowing how to say the word means you know how to spell it as long as you know what symbols go with what words. We have an alphabet. Our language is a phonetic one. Part of the problem with english is that its a mishmesh of many different cultural languages that have different sounds for the same, or similar symbols, as well as some symbols that just flat out got dropped from usage as languages molded together. As to why it hasn't be refined is beyond me.
As to why it hasn't be refined is beyond me.
Oh that's easy...
lack of funding.
Really, the Constitution abolished slavery...
"All men are created equal..."
That's from the Declaration of Independence.
Ah, you're right of course...
My mistake.
So, see, the Decleration of Independence actually abolished slavery.
Now, why nobody interpreted it that way is beyond me...
@DF: Correction - English is NOT a phonetic language.
Then enlighten me as to what kind of language it is suppose to be.
Ah, you're right of course...
My mistake.
So, see, the Decleration of Independence actually abolished slavery.
Now, why nobody interpreted it that way is beyond me...
Well, the Declaration wasn't really a legal document.
And it didn't decide that everyone was equal, it explained that the writers thought that such should be considered self-evident.
But anyway, the question has always been "Which people count as people?"
Now, the Declaration of Independence has it right there, "all", but nobody since seems to think that "all" means all.
Heck, most people still got groups that don't count.
Then enlighten me as to what kind of language it is suppose to be.
A complex, non-phonetic language with roots based upon many different influences, alphabets, and pronunciations. Phonetic languages necessarily involve a phonetic alphabet, wherein each symbol has one (and only one) sound associated with it. English does NOT meet that requirement. Spanish does, English does not. In fact, there aren't very many symbols in the alphabet that have a single sound (I believe, haven't checked) they are the minority.
Then enlighten me as to what kind of language it is suppose to be.
A complex, non-phonetic language with roots based upon many different influences, alphabets, and pronunciations. Phonetic languages necessarily involve a phonetic alphabet, wherein each symbol has one (and only one) sound associated with it. English does NOT meet that requirement. Spanish does, English does not. In fact, there aren't very many symbols in the alphabet that have a single sound (I believe, haven't checked) they are the minority.
Ok fair enough. Now back to the point of some of these people that are for instance on literacy councils and such (or at least representing them so i'd assume they'd be well versed in the language) protest the language as it currently stands asking for a phonetic revision. I agree with them on that.
There is a big problem with English being hard for both native speakers and foreigners to learn. It's just plane difficult. Why not refine it so as to get rid of redundancies, irrelevant letters and to assign no symbols to all the different sounds? One of the things i enjoyed about Spanish class was that i could read a full page and pronounce everything correctly despite not having a single clue what i just read. English tends to be just the opposite. You might know all the words written on a page if spoken to you but try reading it and you'll be lost. And yeah i'm like that often. Passing college level English courses and still English can be extremely hard for me to figure out and it's my only language i use.
And i seriously don't think such a revision would be too hard. make a few more symbols. revise spellings. and boom we got an easy to use language.
It's not quite that easy. There are a number of factors to contend with. First, realize that doing so, in essence, is creating a new alphabet, and language, and adopted standards - which would necessarily need to be enforced at a national level (cultural purity acts, as they exist in other countries). Second, it would require doing something that this country has been continually loathe to do (though some regions have done so), and that is to adopt this language as our "national language". Third, English (as it stands) is not ours (the USA's), England, by rights, would have more of a say in it. Of course, we could create our own, but, again, that requires reeducation of the ENTIRE population. Lastly, the language itself has been adopted over much of the world, so the reeducation effort could not stop at our border.
Oh - and lest I forget, there are also technological considerations (new keyboards, etc)
edited to add: and as a Bee participant from way back, I should add, that is why most will ask the root language of the word in question. Knowing the origin of the term (greek, latin, other romance, etc) often helps in determining the proper spelling in English.
And i seriously don't think such a revision would be too hard. make a few more symbols. revise spellings. and boom we got an easy to use language.
It is very difficult to engineer language like that. If you were to retool english, that would mean everyone who speaks it would have to learn the new rules and symbols. And chances are there wouldn't be uniformity from one English speaking country to the next, which might reduce ease of communication between them.
Look at it this way. Language is, obviously, a means of communication. It must be clear and understandable in order to facilitate communication. The more esoteric or unclear, the more confusion results, the more of the intended signal is lost.
Now, you tell me; if a language is sufficiently awkward and obtuse that nation-wide competitions are held in which people have to figure out how a spoken word is recorded in its written form... is it really doing its job properly? Seriously, if most Americans heard that Japan had a competition in which people try (with mounting failure) to correctly write sentences in their own language, they'd say 'Typical crazy Japanese culture. Even they can't understand that moonspeak of theirs.'
I ran the spelling bee circuit as a kid. I pwn't my school every year and always went to the regionals. Most of the fundamental preparation (aside from trying to read every word ever over and over again) involved learning at least a little bit of every language from which english has borrowed. I can stumble through a good bit of latin and greek because I had to pick up enough to hammer out root words. I have approximately the same degree of fluency with all of the romantic languages too. This only took me to the regionals.
It should not take that much work to be able to accurately record any given spoken word into text. It should not be so obtuse and convoluted that annual contests can be held. It should be as simple as speaking itself, since written word is nothing but an interface for text. If an operating system were so impenetrable that a nation-wide competition were held to see who could actually run the damned thing, people would switch to something different.
The reason it doesn't matter one bit that these protestors are right is that it's impossible to get everyone to switch to something different, particularly when that something different is demonized as the domain of ignorant morons. Just look at velcro! Velcro is absolutely superior to laces. It's faster, it's simpler, it's just as good if not better at precision tensioning and garment closure. What's the biggest use of velcro in fashion? Children's shoes. Why? Because some idiot thought that'd be the best opening market. Alas, velcro was immediately branded 'the fastener for people too stupid to tie their own shoes' and never escaped that stigma.
Same goes for simplified spelling; people spent a lot of time as kids getting spelling right, and they'll be damned if they aren't going to enjoy the sense of superiority that those years purchased. It doesn't matter if it's more efficient; all it takes for simplified spelling to never even begin to take off is for it to look stupid. The irony, of course, is that refusing a more elegant and effective solution because it looks stupid is some of the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard.
P.S. Pippy, I find your sig's second image distractingly large.
sums up my thoughts on the topic well.Also, ADHadh iz roight. We shud all talk loik dis, cuz orc-speek's da best.
My English Language Tweaks:
Firstly: Do we really need the letter "C" as a stand-alone letter? It alternates between working as a "K" and an "S", with it's only unique property being the way it acts when paired with an "H". This makes it wholly redundant as a stand-alone. If I were to propose a change, my first one would be to make the 3rd letter of the alphabet "CH", then we can use "K" or "S" where phonetically appropriate.
Secondly: Do we really need the "PH" dipthong? "PH" is a Latin holdover because it was pronounced differently in Latin than it is in English. In English, the letter "F" and the dipthong "PH" make the same sound. There is no need for this, and it actually harkens back to my first tweak's premise; which is eliminating unneccesary redundancy.
Thirdly: Do we really need silent letters? Is there any benefit at all to the silent "K" in knife, or the "P" in psychology?
Don't get the wrong idea. I am all for the heritage of language (I find the word origin notes in my dictionary quite edifying). The fundamental truth however, is that English is not Latin. The language has changed so much that doing away with a few of the outdated conventions of early English is not a "dumbing-down" of the language.
@MrC: One of the other issues is that new words would need to be coined. To truly become a phonetic language, homonyms (currently referred to as homophones) would need to be removed. At current, the spoken word itself is not clear enough, it is often the spelling that allows the proper context to be derived.
This nauseates me nearly as much as the people who are teaching that the civil war was only about slavery.
Probably because it was?
The Confederate states rebelled because they were indeed afraid that Lincoln was going to take slavery away. Kinda like today's NRA and their guns, except obviously more extreme.
Oh, and lol protestors.
Now, getting everyone to adopt the new language... that would be the tricky part.
This nauseates me nearly as much as the people who are teaching that the civil war was only about slavery.
Probably because it was?
No it wasn't.
It was about the federal gov't involving itself in issues that the southern states felt were state issues and no business of the gov't.
What the hell are they teaching as history nowadays? Liberal talking points?
No it wasn't.
It was about the federal gov't involving itself in issues that the southern states felt were state issues and no business of the gov't.
In other words, it was about the states' rights to have slavery. Gotcha.
This nauseates me nearly as much as the people who are teaching that the civil war was only about slavery.
Probably because it was?
No it wasn't.
It was about the federal gov't involving itself in issues that the southern states felt were state issues and no business of the gov't.
What the hell are they teaching as history nowadays? Liberal talking points?
Like segregation too, right bubba? Look these are two historical cases where bigots hid (and continue to hide) behind the states rights issue). The fact if the deferal federal government hadn't stepped in, there is a good chance I'd be sitting at the back of the bus or denied service for the color of my skin. States rights be damned when they are pushing racist policies and violating civil rights.
No it wasn't.
It was about the federal gov't involving itself in issues that the southern states felt were state issues and no business of the gov't.
What the hell are they teaching as history nowadays? Liberal talking points?
I won't go as far as the liberal talking points. I'll estimate that some fleshling history teachers don't like certain points of history and omitted data. The students could also be the problem; listening to only a few points while ignoring other data presented.
No it wasn't.
It was about the federal gov't involving itself in issues that the southern states felt were state issues and no business of the gov't.
In other words, it was about the states' rights to have slavery. Gotcha.
But it wasn't all about slavery.
Slavery was but one of many issues.
This nauseates me nearly as much as the people who are teaching that the civil war was only about slavery.
Probably because it was?
No it wasn't.
It was about the federal gov't involving itself in issues that the southern states felt were state issues and no business of the gov't.
What the hell are they teaching as history nowadays? Liberal talking points?
Like segregation too, right bubba? Look these are two historical cases where bigots hid (and continue to hide) behind the states rights issue). The fact if the deferal federal government hadn't stepped in, there is a good chance I'd be sitting at the back of the bus or denied service for the color of my skin. States rights be damned when they are pushing racist policies and violating civil rights.
Who you callin' bubba?
Do you have a problem?
No it wasn't.
It was about the federal gov't involving itself in issues that the southern states felt were state issues and no business of the gov't.
In other words, it was about the states' rights to have slavery. Gotcha.
But it wasn't all about slavery.
Slavery was but one of many issues.
Slavery was THE big issue of the civil war. And it was the most significant in terms of the war's consequences.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
No it wasn't.
It was about the federal gov't involving itself in issues that the southern states felt were state issues and no business of the gov't.
In other words, it was about the states' rights to have slavery. Gotcha.
But it wasn't all about slavery.
Slavery was but one of many issues.
Slavery was THE big issue of the civil war. And it was the most significant in terms of the war's consequences.
No it wasn't.
Where did you learn your history?
They did you a disservice, whoever it was.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
Exactly.
My asking about his problem is in response to him callin' somebody bubba.
I mean, if he wants to call names, I can play that game too... and I am not politically correct and am sure to hurt somebodys feelings...
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
It was about slavery. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Most historians still agree on this point. Yes other factors were at work, but slavery was the root issue. People that want to make it a states rights issue, are deliberately ignoring the racial elements, and frankly dismissing the plight of blacks who were treated like animals by the southern states. Same with the civil rights movement. We all know states rights is code.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
Exactly.
My asking about his problem is in response to him callin' somebody bubba.
I mean, if he wants to call names, I can play that game too... and I am not politically correct and am sure to hurt somebodys feelings...
FYI: Bubba is the term the FBI uses to refer to domestic extremists and militias like McVeigh.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
Exactly.
My asking about his problem is in response to him callin' somebody bubba.
I mean, if he wants to call names, I can play that game too... and I am not politically correct and am sure to hurt somebodys feelings...
FYI: Bubba is the term the FBI uses to refer to domestic extremists and militias like McVeigh.
And you use it as they do, as a derogatory remark used to create a reaction.
So, it is ok to call people "bubba" but it isn't ok to call people "****" or "n*****"?
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
It was about slavery. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Most historians still agree on this point. Yes other factors were at work, but slavery was the root issue. People that want to make it a states rights issue, are deliberately ignoring the racial elements, and frankly dismissing the plight of blacks who were treated like animals by the southern states. Same with the civil rights movement. We all know states rights is code.
No.
It.
Wasn't.
It was a conflict about states rights, slavery was but one aspect of that.
Stop spreading disinformation.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
Exactly.
My asking about his problem is in response to him callin' somebody bubba.
I mean, if he wants to call names, I can play that game too... and I am not politically correct and am sure to hurt somebodys feelings...
FYI: Bubba is the term the FBI uses to refer to domestic extremists and militias like McVeigh.
And you use it as they do, as a derogatory remark used to create a reaction.
So, it is ok to call people "bubba" but it isn't ok to call people "****" or "n*****"?
I didn't realize it was a slur. If so I appologize and take it back.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
It was about slavery. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Most historians still agree on this point. Yes other factors were at work, but slavery was the root issue. People that want to make it a states rights issue, are deliberately ignoring the racial elements, and frankly dismissing the plight of blacks who were treated like animals by the southern states. Same with the civil rights movement. We all know states rights is code.
No.
It.
Wasn't.
It was a conflict about states rights, slavery was but one aspect of that.
Stop spreading disinformation.
I am not, you are. And people like you continue to dodge the core isse of the civil war, buy rebranding it states rights. The fact is, the war wouldn't have occued had there been no abolitionist movement, had the south not been so pro-slavery, and had Abe Lincoln not been electied. There were other issues, such as disaparities in economic power between the north and south, but states rights is just code, for let us keep our slaves. The same argument was made during the civil rights movement.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
It was about slavery. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Most historians still agree on this point. Yes other factors were at work, but slavery was the root issue. People that want to make it a states rights issue, are deliberately ignoring the racial elements, and frankly dismissing the plight of blacks who were treated like animals by the southern states. Same with the civil rights movement. We all know states rights is code.
No.
It.
Wasn't.
It was a conflict about states rights, slavery was but one aspect of that.
Stop spreading disinformation.
I am not, you are. And people like you continue to dodge the core isse of the civil war, buy rebranding it states rights. The fact is, the war wouldn't have occued had there been no abolitionist movement, had the south not been so pro-slavery, and had Abe Lincoln not been electied. There were other issues, such as disaparities in economic power between the north and south, but states rights is just code, for let us keep our slaves. The same argument was made during the civil rights movement.
Slavery was not the core issue of the Civil War.
You are, indeed, wrong.
States Rights was the main issue and cause of the Civil War.
Slavery was a big part of that, but it wasn't the main issue.
I suggest you read a real history book, not some liberals interpretation of one.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
It was about slavery. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Most historians still agree on this point. Yes other factors were at work, but slavery was the root issue. People that want to make it a states rights issue, are deliberately ignoring the racial elements, and frankly dismissing the plight of blacks who were treated like animals by the southern states. Same with the civil rights movement. We all know states rights is code.
No.
It.
Wasn't.
It was a conflict about states rights, slavery was but one aspect of that.
Stop spreading disinformation.
I am not, you are. And people like you continue to dodge the core isse of the civil war, buy rebranding it states rights. The fact is, the war wouldn't have occued had there been no abolitionist movement, had the south not been so pro-slavery, and had Abe Lincoln not been electied. There were other issues, such as disaparities in economic power between the north and south, but states rights is just code, for let us keep our slaves. The same argument was made during the civil rights movement.
Slavery was not the core issue of the Civil War.
You are, indeed, wrong.
States Rights was the main issue and cause of the Civil War.
Slavery was a big part of that, but it wasn't the main issue.
I suggest you read a real history book, not some liberals interpretation of one.
Prove it.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
It was about slavery. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Most historians still agree on this point. Yes other factors were at work, but slavery was the root issue. People that want to make it a states rights issue, are deliberately ignoring the racial elements, and frankly dismissing the plight of blacks who were treated like animals by the southern states. Same with the civil rights movement. We all know states rights is code.
I did have content for this post but the forum programming is still up to more shenanigans... blasted coding.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
It was about slavery. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Most historians still agree on this point. Yes other factors were at work, but slavery was the root issue. People that want to make it a states rights issue, are deliberately ignoring the racial elements, and frankly dismissing the plight of blacks who were treated like animals by the southern states. Same with the civil rights movement. We all know states rights is code.
No.
It.
Wasn't.
It was a conflict about states rights, slavery was but one aspect of that.
Stop spreading disinformation.
I am not, you are. And people like you continue to dodge the core isse of the civil war, buy rebranding it states rights. The fact is, the war wouldn't have occued had there been no abolitionist movement, had the south not been so pro-slavery, and had Abe Lincoln not been electied. There were other issues, such as disaparities in economic power between the north and south, but states rights is just code, for let us keep our slaves. The same argument was made during the civil rights movement.
Slavery was not the core issue of the Civil War.
You are, indeed, wrong.
States Rights was the main issue and cause of the Civil War.
Slavery was a big part of that, but it wasn't the main issue.
I suggest you read a real history book, not some liberals interpretation of one.
Prove it.
americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmen...
stop sending me hateful and ignorant PM's.
Do you have a problem?
Yes I have a problem with someone using states' rights to advance a racist proposition.
I estimate that is not Robin_Hoodlum's position on the subject. He is declaring that which caused the American civil war was the dispute of state rights and how much power states should have. Slavery was an issue involved in the dispute, but it wasn't the only issue that caused the rebellion. Was it the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back? There is a possibility but the politicians that were involved are now unable to respond to the inquiry appropriately.
It was about slavery. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Most historians still agree on this point. Yes other factors were at work, but slavery was the root issue. People that want to make it a states rights issue, are deliberately ignoring the racial elements, and frankly dismissing the plight of blacks who were treated like animals by the southern states. Same with the civil rights movement. We all know states rights is code.
No.
It.
Wasn't.
It was a conflict about states rights, slavery was but one aspect of that.
Stop spreading disinformation.
I am not, you are. And people like you continue to dodge the core isse of the civil war, buy rebranding it states rights. The fact is, the war wouldn't have occued had there been no abolitionist movement, had the south not been so pro-slavery, and had Abe Lincoln not been electied. There were other issues, such as disaparities in economic power between the north and south, but states rights is just code, for let us keep our slaves. The same argument was made during the civil rights movement.
Slavery was not the core issue of the Civil War.
You are, indeed, wrong.
States Rights was the main issue and cause of the Civil War.
Slavery was a big part of that, but it wasn't the main issue.
I suggest you read a real history book, not some liberals interpretation of one.
Prove it.
americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmen...
Re-read that brother. 3 of the 5 causes listed are related to slavery. Why did you think states rights was such issue? Slavery is the answer.