Oregon-Oregon State game will no longer be called "Civil War"
I'm for everything going on right now in terms of racial equality, but making false equivalencies like this plus the "gator bait" thing for Florida does nothing. "Civil War" is a broad term that has nothing to do with race. There have been hundreds of civil wars in history and to me it seems kind of ridiculous that one of the two institutions of higher learning couldn't point this out. But that's just me.
How long does this thread remain open? Under or over one hour?
If by "one hour" you mean "forever", then yes.
Whole thing is sad that 5 pct of the people are the ones making these decisions
Lol, ok.
It’s better than the .100% who own our politicians.
I think you forgot a zero (or maybe two).
Fixed. Good call.
If every Black person in this country said they supported this that'd still be like 12%. Would that not be enough for you?
Here we go again.....
Kansas and Missouri don't play regularly any more, but their rivalry is called the Border War. And that actually DOES have historical roots related to the mid-19th Century and the battle over slavery.
Oregon and Oregon State can do what they want, but it doesn't seem necessary to me. Maybe it's just the word "war." But then I suppose we'll also have to get rid of a few others: Border War (Colorado St/Wyoming), War on I-4 (UCF/South Florida), Holy War (Utah/BYU).
-------------
I'm stealing this from Reddit, but I had to share because I love it. Oregon & Oregon State could just rename the game "The War of ORthern aggression."
I believe the KU/Missouri rivalry is now called the Border Showdown. I think this was changed about a decade ago. Could be wrong.
Ah, you are right. They changed it in 2004, I didn't know that. Sounds like they changed it given the war we were in at the time.
Thanks.
I went to the CSU v Wyoming game last year in Laramie. That was still branded the Border War. Those are 2 schools that definitely don't care for each other.
Go Rams! (Used to teach in Scottsbluff, NE)...friends with lots of alums of both schools.
Examiner : All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu : Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter...
Examiner : Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu : Slavery it is, sir.
This is just incorrect as a matter of history. Don't take my word, take America's leading civil war historian's. Here's two primary sources:
The South Carolina Declaration of Secession:
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
A speech by the VP of the Confederacy in 1861:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I'll never understand why people twist themselves into knots to proclaim the civil war wasn't really about slavery. I don't care if it was the 15th thing on the list. Slavery was kind of a big deal.
The problem is that when people say the war was about "slavery" it is an incredible oversimplification that throws out much of the details. Basically, a lazy version of history.
Slavery was ABSOLUTELY a factor, but it had different priority to different parties. Some made it their main cause (for and against), some supported one side of the argument personally but could live with it either way legally (for example, Lincoln), and others did not care and had other motivations for the war.
People forget that five state that fought for the Union against the Confederacy were slave states (MD, DE, WV, KY, MO) and obviously were not fighting to end the practice. Also, the written accounts from many of the leading military men of the Union clearly show that they did not view the war as a righteous quest to free the slaves (although a few did). This is NOT meant to claim that obtaining freedom for the slaves was anything than a worthy cause (it clearly was the right thing)... just that many of the people of that time did not necessarily view it that way.
In fact... in a way the civil war never ended since the hardest issue to resolve never truly was: the state vs federal conflict. Slavery, as a practice/institution was already "on the way out" as it were by the 19th century, globally. Not only is it quite immoral by humanitarian standards (even at that time), but it is very impractical (and inefficient) economically. Many other nations around the world that actually relied on slavery for a non-trivial portion of their economic productivity eventually abandoned it - most without resulting to warfare scale violence (and some with little violence at all). There was a fair chance it could have been resolved peacefully in the US even then... maybe. Yet, we are still burdened with state vs federal issue today.
Also, people tend to forget that almost every nation on earth has had civil wars (often more than once). Some of them have also had racial/ethnic overtones. There is a tendency in this country to be obtuse about how our own history actually fits into the greater context about what has happened around the world - past and present.
Saying it was about slavery is a simplification, but it's not an oversimplification. As a reference, see every articles of secession, including the ones mentioned above. Also, bloody Kansas, Missouri compromise, John Brown...what actual major disagreement between the north and south was NOT about slavery? Tariffs? Maybe, but those were also kinda about slavery.
Was it the main reason why soldiers fought? Certainly not pre-emancipation proclamation, but the war was started because of slavery.
I think people are taking my post the wrong way, but whatevs. Just to be clear, however, I believe that the Civil War was first, foremost, and most importantly a conflict about ending slavery. There were definitely intermediate causes unrelated or only partially related to slavery, but the war was "about" slavery.
White people had slaves because it was free labor. Like almost everything in this world it came down to $ and power...in this case the southern economies ran on free black labor.
Ideas of white supremacy, segregation, racism, etc were borrowed and reused from European tradition to justify this lucrative practice. Whites were not traveling to Africa to enslave people because they enjoyed the journey and torturing another race of individuals, they were doing so because it was the fuel for their agrarian economies. They then came up with every absurd idea and justification for why this practice was ok.
So yes, the Civil War was absolutely about slavery, and slavery was absolutely about the exploitation of blacks for financial gain. Racism and ideas of white supremacy were the tools used to hold this system in place.
Please explain how slavery was "free labor". Start by explaining how owning slaves cost less than paying minimum wage would cost today. Thank you.
You couldn't quit slavery. You can quit a minimum wage job. I don't know the economics of slavery, but I'd assume owning another human being and everything they create 24/7 is more lucrative than running a sweatshop. Slavery had a 1 time fixed cost (buying the slave), and then they were forced to work however the owner chose.
I'm not really sure what you are asking though. Slavery is disgusting, inhumane, and something we still need to combat today (like sex slavery and illicit labor slavery which still occurs). My point was simply that the south didn't just have slaves because they were all sadists - it was a way to fully exploit someone's existence into financial gain - absolutely disgusting and immoral, but also born from greed. The ideas of being a "superior" race and having the right to own blacks had its tradition in European colonialism, and was also a very convenient belief system for plantation owners wanting to continue the practice. It was awful, cruel, and evil imo, but it was also the fuel for the south's economy at the time and that economic reality is absolutely part of the overall exploitation that was taking place.
My point is that making a statement like "slavery is free labor" is so asinine that it discredits everything else you say. You made a statement about something that you now admit you have zero knowledge, which is clearly true. Research your facts first. You respond with "I don't know the economics....but I'd assume..." Please preface such posts with "I have no idea what I am talking about, but read my opinion because I think it matters." I hope you never actually attended UM.
Please enlighten me to the economics of slavery. I have never studied it and would rather not as I find it disgusting, but beyond the purchase of another human being - who is then forced to work 24-7 for the master, I do no see the financial costs.
I really hope you are not equating slavery with a minimum wage job as you did in the prior post. If so, I don't care what school you attended, you are a moral failure of a human being.
Is this a trick question?
Uncompensated is less than minimally compensated.
In the slavery system (and this extends far beyond just the more recent incarnation of black slavery in the Americas the last few hundred years - e.g. Rome, Greece, Persia, China, Egypt, and many other cultures throughout history), the economics are not great. Yes, there is no direct cost of the labor itself - that part is "free", with the only direct cost being the up front purchase price (assuming the person was purchased and not born into slavery). However, the indirect costs are significant. Aside from the fact that the "owner" must provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care (yes, even if they did not see slaves as people, they would need them healthy enough to work), education (keep in mind not all slaves were for rudimentary manual labor), etc. Another indirect cost is the oversight - slaves don't like being slaves and have a tendency to run away if not outright rebel (slavery has been in history for thousands of years and the slave revolt almost as long - from Spartacus to Nat Turner as well as others before, after, and in between). The "owner" basically must run a prison in addition to the actual operations of whatever the original function of their facility must be (and, in the US instance, they also had to pax taxes on the slaves they owned... albeit only at a rate of 3/5 of a person, but it adds up). Finally, since slaves were usually not paid for their labor their actual productivity was poor - do just enough to keep from being punished, but there was little to no incentivization to improve their work.
Slavery (when used for mass physical labor) was only practical in situations where the result of the labor was a very high value item (such as cotton, sugar, bananas, cocoa, etc.) and even then the costs still cut into margins. Keep in mind that the plantation concept of specialized crop-production had been around long before the American colonies (and is still used today around the world); it does not require the use of slaves at all - that was just the predominant form that occurred in the Americas until the 19th century or so. Operations run on a simple paid wage labor paradigm (granted, these were/are not often "fair" wages, but that is a different issue) actually end up costing the "owner" less in total operations (there are many other ways to oppress/exploit people than slavery, as seen in the cases of colonial India, China, Africa but also the modern day sweatshops/mines/plantations in Asia, Africa, and South America). And that is not even touching on other quasi-slavery institutions such as serfdom and indentured servitude, which were pervasive throughout Europe (and somewhat in the Americas).
The point of all this is that slavery is/was 1) morally reprehensible and 2) economically inefficienct. Both reasons contributed to its decline over time.
I get the thinking and think you're in good faith, but I find this hard to believe. There's ample evidence that:
- Slaves were an enormously valuable asset class.
- Slaves were tremendously expensive, and slave prices were appreciating (even when adjusted for inflation) between 1840 and 1860.
- Despite the supposed economic advantages of minimally paid emancipated labor, there's no historical evidence of spontaneous shifts by plantations owners to minimally paid emancipated labor OR of newcomers (e.g. investors) starting up minimally paid emancipated labor plantations.
- Despite the supposed economic advantages of minimally paid emancipated labor, a variety of modern profitable enterprises rely on minimal-to-no compensation and provide room & board. Wouldn't the market have learned by now?
To my mind, all of these are powerful evidence against the "slavery was wildly inefficient and in fact a bad deal for the owners" theory (which is also, obviously, morally repulsive).
Longer version of serious economics-based critique.
- It's a common misconception that all slaves were unskilled laborers. Many slaves were skilled laborers (see, e.g., a list of slaves of at Monticello that includes chefs, carpenters, blacksmiths, etc; the rice plantations in the Carolinas that relied on extensive slave knowledge of rice cultivation.) It seems pretty evident that uncompensated skilled labor is, uh, profitable.
- If slavery was so unprofitable, why didn't slave-owners spontaneously switch to sharecropping? Why didn't someone start a slave-free plantation and pocket the superior profits?
- Why do you think alternative labor was available? Those jobs fucking sucked -- working outside in the Deep South, from dawn to dusk, picking cotton, cultivating tobacco, etc -- and it seems difficult to imagine people willingly taking those jobs.
- If slavery was so unprofitable, why do most modern estimates (and contemporaneous estimates when paid mandatory manumission was being kicked around?) peg the total value of American slaves as around $3bn in today's dollars? Why was the value of slaves going up by 1860 (see e.g.) In the 1840s, per that data set, why did a slave cost (in inflation-adjusted dollars to 2020) about $10,000? If slavery was fading out, why was the average cost (again, inflation adjusted) somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 in 1860? (Alternative source pegs the average cost at $23,000; source mentioned above puts it a bit over $30,000?)
- Why is it generally accepted that modern operations that run like this (low compensation, but food + shelter provided -- e.g. Foxconn, imported construction workers in Qatar, Chinese nail salons in NYC, domestics in many countries, American farm labor) are profitable? If it's really more profitable to just pay but not provide shelter, etc, then ... why wouldn't these organizations do that? (Besides, don't you think that these organizations push their costs incredibly low by providing dogshit food, shelter, etc -- see, e.g. Frederick Douglass's description of slavery)
I don't have time to full address all of your points, but just a few comments:
You ask why a transition away from a slavery model to a simple wage didn't occur more naturally if it was the better economical solution. One reason was simply that the economic understanding may not have been there for the owners. But non-economic factors were likely in play as well: some slave owner may have enjoyed the power it entailed, but also others in the general Southern community may have preferred the social stratification. Many (if not most) of the actual soldiers that fought for the Confederacy were not slave owners themselves - yet they may have felt it was necessary to defend their social status. In other places in the world a transition from chattel slavery to serfdom (of some form) occurred, then later to more conventional peasantry. Slavery existed (in some form) in almost every region of the world at some point in it's history - it was not invented by white Europeans when they started colonizing Africa... yet it is (almost) completely gone in all of those places. This would not be likely if there was a strong economic benefit to the slavery model.
You ask why other modern institutions that offer minimal pay yet also room and board do so (in comparison to the slavery model) - yet you forget that they do so by choice and do not need to be forcibly held to their position and status (you point out situations such as the Asian laborers in Qatar and other middle east nations, which I also had in mind when writing my earlier comment about modern day sweatshops, etc. - very poor situations yet technically all by choice... unfortunately not all nations have come as far in their labor laws).
Slaves were absolutely valuable and not just for manual labor (some people throughout history that were technically slaves lived much better lives than some free people - although those were less likely to attempt escape). Yet the majority of slaves were for hard manual labor. Part of the financial risk in the slavery model is exactly due to the high value of chattel slaves. Their loss (whether by escape, theft by another slaver, death, etc.) would be a serious financial hit - especially when occurring en masse (thus necessitating additional expenditure to secure it). It is much easier to have laborers want to come to work, even if the pay is comparable to full costs of maintaining a chattel slave.
A few analyses:
https://fee.org/articles/slavery-was-never-economically-efficient/
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense
The dreaded...
Triple Post
Homer: Hey Apu, in a Civil War reenactment we need lots of Indians to shoot!
Apu: I don't know which part of that sentence to correct first.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/TheSimpsonsS13E19TheSweetestApu
these guys are the confused ones....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc-j8NQDhm8
skip to 24 seconds..2 minutes of humor
Are people missing that this is a Simpsons reference?
Yeah, I posted this as a "let's not overanalyze this, the Civil War was just about slavery" kind of thing - and a humorous one, as it came from the Simpsons - but I think it was taken as a statement that the Civil War was "really" about various issues, not just slavery. Oh well, the world is very tense at the moment...
You are correct, it was about many issues. Slavery, however was the most disgusting, immoral and inhumane divide in the conflict. All other aspects - states rights, representation, etc could be debated sincerely.
With slavery, one side was right, one was wrong, and this is why it is THE most important and relevant issue of the Civil War. Yes, there were Union States where slavery was legal as well, but they knew abolition would come with a Union victory. So yes, the causes were multiple, including economic which absolutely tied into the Southern slave economy, but the takeaway should not be what exactly caused the Civil War, but, instead, why the Union was on the righteous side of history in this conflict.
Can we have the "R" word back, please? It's getting really difficult to talk about certain people without it.
or building materials that prevents the spread of fire?
Do you mean pirates?
i think he meant 'R'utgers.
I'm not saying I agree with this action (I probably don't) but let's not mischaracterize their argument. Obviously they know a "civil war" is a broad term but in practice it really only evokes memories of one event in this country.
Memories?
Couldn't it evoke good memories for some considering the slaves were freed because of it? Who is to say it only evokes bad memories?
Outstanding point, but keep in mind, if it evokes a bad memory for just 1 person, it must be ended./s
Duck-Beaver fight?
Beaver beat down?
Just as long as they don't change the name for the Civil ConFLiCT rivalry, I'm good.
What’s so civil about war, anyway?
Well, if you’re rich, it feeds you. At least that’s what I’ve heard.