War Between The States

[ColdNoMore]

Per the moderator's suggestion...

Again, the topic is flag etiquette/rules in The Villages.

If you want to have a non-political discussion about the Civil War, feel free to start a new thread.

Moderator

It's simply amazing at the revisionism going on. :ohdear:

The "state's rights" that keep being referenced, is having the 'right'...to own other human beings. :mad:

Or does anyone really believe, that it was just a coincidence that the states trying to secede...were ALL slave-holding states?

If you do, I have this bridge... :oops:

[TimeForChange]

With study and reading you will find that the majority of individuals who fought in the "War of Northern Aggression" (Civil War) for both the North and the South did not even own any slaves. So I guess they just fought for those who did. I seriously doubt they did that.

[ColdNoMore]

With study and reading you will find that the majority of individuals who fought in the "War of Northern Aggression" (Civil War) for both the North and the South did not even own any slaves. So I guess they just fought for those who did. I seriously doubt they did that.

Instead of depending on short soundbites you may of heard (very likely from relatives) to obfuscate and downplay slavery, you might want to educate yourself...with a little real research. :thumbup:

I encourage you to read...this entire article. :ho:

You may even find one myth...that makes you feel better. ;)



5 Myths About Slavery (click here) (http://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery)

2. Myth #2: The South seceded from the Union over the issue of states’ rights, not slavery.

This myth, that the Civil War wasn’t fundamentally a conflict over slavery, would have been a surprise to the original founders of the Confederacy. In the official declaration of the causes of their secession in December 1860, South Carolina’s delegates cited “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” According to them, the Northern interference with the return of fugitive slaves was violating their constitutional obligations; they also complained that some states in New England tolerated abolitionist societies and allowed black men to vote.

As James W. Loewen, author of “Lies My Teacher Told Me” and “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader,” wrote in the Washington Post: “In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights—that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.” The idea that the war was somehow not about slavery but about the issue of states’ rights was perpetuated by later generations anxious to redefine their ancestors’ sacrifices as a noble protection of the Southern way of life. At the time, however, Southerners had no problem claiming the protection of slavery as the cause of their break with the Union.

3. Myth #3: Only a small percentage of Southerners owned slaves.

Closely related to Myth #2, the idea that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were men of modest means rather than large plantation owners is usually used to reinforce the contention that the South wouldn’t have gone to war to protect slavery. The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent in Arkansas).

But as Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion point out in Slate, the percentages don’t fully express the extent to which the antebellum South was a slave society, built on a foundation of slavery. Many of those white families who couldn’t afford slaves aspired to, as a symbol of wealth and prosperity. In addition, the essential ideology of white supremacy that served as a rationale for slavery, made it extremely difficult—and terrifying—for white Southerners to imagine life alongside a black majority population that was not in bondage. In this way, many non-slave-owning Confederates went to war to protect not only slavery, but to preserve the foundation of the only way of life they knew.

[Rango]

:popcorn:

[manaboutown]

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

And those who try to suppress the memories of the past are complicit in that condemnation.

[ColdNoMore]

Such a brush off of a serious time...Not a "recent unpleasantness" but very important era in this country.

Those same feeling have been, and continue to be resurrected.

We recently on this forum, had an ideal example of the rebirth. A troll, whose entire existence revolves around these feeling invaded. The killings in the last few years reflect the growth in these feelings.

Brushing off such an important subject is irresponsible, in my opinion. Not understanding the under current of hate that bubbles is..well, not sure what to call it, but closing our hearts and minds to this kind of thing allows the continuance of this upswing, and insures it will continue.

Call it what you want, but it was and still is based on hatred. Closing your mind because it is not comfortable will not make it go away, but enhance it.

Methinks the phrase "recent unpleasantness," has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread...but is referencing something else.

I take my hint from the new signature...which is purely political.

Who knows for sure though...as I've been fooled before. :shrug:

BUT, I am no longer fooled by the depths of the general hatred/anger/prejudices of which you speak, since we watch it play out day after day...in front of our very eyes. :ohdear:

The good news being, that those who sought to destroy the effort "to form a more perfect Union" way back when, got their butts kicked...and decency prevailed. :cool:

As usual though, you've pretty much nailed...the rest of it. :thumbup:

[billethkid]

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Make room for one more

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[anothersteve]

Just as a point of history the North wasn't, didn't fight to end slavery, they were fighting to preserve the Union. So don't think at that time the the North was so high and mighty. The south wanted to secede from the Union for more reasons than the "right" to "own" slaves as property. Granted that turned out to be the primary reason in history. It was a really crappy time in America's history, and to say that hatred and bigotry is as prevalent today as it was then is pure garbage and what the far left would like you to believe. How many of you see it in your daily lives instead of what the media spews out on an almost daily basis? Personally I see more good in this world than evil, been that way my whole life......maybe I've been living in a bubble for the past 63yrs,........or just maybe I don't take the media and any talking heads to heart.

OK.....now let's see who will be the first to bring modern politics into the fray.
Steve

[New Englander]

Just as a point of history the North wasn't, didn't fight to end slavery, they were fighting to preserve the Union. So don't think at that time the the North was so high and mighty. The south wanted to secede from the Union for more reasons than the "right" to "own" slaves as property. Granted that turned out to be the primary reason in history. It was a really crappy time in America's history, and to say that hatred and bigotry is as prevalent today as it was then is pure garbage and what the far left would like you to believe. How many of you see it in your daily lives instead of what the media spews out on an almost daily basis? Personally I see more good in this world than evil, been that way my whole life......maybe I've been living in a bubble for the past 63yrs,........or just maybe I don't take the media and any talking heads to heart.

OK.....now let's see who will be the first to bring modern politics into the fray.
Steve

Excellent post Steve.

[ColdNoMore]

Just as a point of history the North wasn't, didn't fight to end slavery, they were fighting to preserve the Union. So don't think at that time the the North was so high and mighty. The south wanted to secede from the Union for more reasons than the "right" to "own" slaves as property. Granted that turned out to be the primary reason in history. It was a really crappy time in America's history, and to say that hatred and bigotry is as prevalent today as it was then is pure garbage and what the far left would like you to believe. How many of you see it in your daily lives instead of what the media spews out on an almost daily basis? Personally I see more good in this world than evil, been that way my whole life......maybe I've been living in a bubble for the past 63yrs,........or just maybe I don't take the media and any talking heads to heart.

OK.....now let's see who will be the first to bring modern politics into the fray.
Steve

LOL :1rotfl:

YOU are the first to do it. :oops:

[Taltarzac725]

American Civil War | The Great Courses (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/american-civil-war.html)

There are some really good materials out there on the American Civil War.

I listened to all of these lectures.

This was available at the Lady Lake Library. Not sure if it is now. They would have many books on this subject though as well as DVDs.

[Two Bills]

Just a point, but the victor always get to write history!

[anothersteve]

LOL :1rotfl:

YOU are the first to do it. :oops:

OK guilty. I guess "someone" had to start.
Steve

[Taltarzac725]

Just a point, but the victor always get to write history!

True in some cases. Not in others. There are books and magazine articles as well as scholarly works of all kinds from the Confederate side of looking at issues. And lots of novels. There are said to be 50,000 books alone on the US Civil War.

Popular Civil War Southern Perspective Books (https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/civil-war-southern-perspective)

[anothersteve]

True in some cases. Not in others. There are books and magazine articles as well as scholarly works of all kinds from the Confederate side of looking at issues. And lots of novels. There are said to be 50,000 books alone on the US Civil War.

Popular Civil War Southern Perspective Books (https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/civil-war-southern-perspective)

Very true. I wish on so many levels people would learn and relearn the history of this great country, the good, the bad, the ugly. I really feel that we are losing all, starting within the educational system, and ending with the same. Very sad!
Steve

[graciegirl]

"The Recent Unpleasantness", is an expression used in the 19th century in the southern United States as an idiom to refer to the American Civil War and its aftermath.

Because I am the one who used this idiomatic expression earlier on this thread and it was misunderstood, and my post was deleted, I felt the need to explain it. It is an expression that I read and remembered, not something I made up as light hearted. It also does not refer to any political situations that happened recently. The term "The recent Unpleasantness" was a euphemism used in literature prior to 1900 to refer to the American Civil War. Please feel free to google it.

the recent unpleasantness - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=D0o2XsDZIMLJ5gKJxKygDg&q=the+recent+unpleasantness&oq=The+recent+un&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l3j0i22i30l7.8780.19616..21848...4.0..0.13 6.1474.18j1....2..0....1..gws-wiz.....6..0i131j0i10j0i362i308i154i357.kzax0PzeUK s)

[JimJohnson]

I thank God the War between the States ended as it did and pray this gifted country never faces another brother against brother "recent unpleasantness," that stole the lives of 620,000 Americans.

[PugMom]

:1rotfl:Make room for one more

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[perrjojo]

With study and reading you will find that the majority of individuals who fought in the "War of Northern Aggression" (Civil War) for both the North and the South did not even own any slaves. So I guess they just fought for those who did. I seriously doubt they did that.

Most people who do not live in the South do not know this. I will tell about my ancestors experience. They were farmers in Missouri and owned no slaves . Just like all wars it was about the government’s decision, not the decision of the people. So why did southerners fight in the war?
General Order No. 11 (1863 - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1863))
My ancestors were forced from their home, livestock confiscated, homes and crops were burned. Women and children walked from Missouri to Texas to seek refuge from the war with many dying along the way. This is why they fought....To protect their livelihood and families from becoming destitute. This is why some still proudly cling to the Confederate flag; to honor those who suffered and lost everything they had. Yes, we lost the war but just as slavery was not something to be proud of, the treatment of citizens of the South was nothing to be proud of either. As they say, war is Hell and it’s effects are not easily forgotten.

[Gigi3000]

Per the moderator's suggestion...



It's simply amazing at the revisionism going on. :ohdear:

The "state's rights" that keep being referenced, is having the 'right'...to own other human beings. :mad:

Or does anyone really believe, that it was just a coincidence that the states trying to secede...were ALL slave-holding states?

If you do, I have this bridge... :oops:

I cant read what the moderator wrote. Background is too light.

[graciegirl]

Charles Schorn, who received the Congressional medal of honor for capturing the last flag at Appomattox was the buglar, and an 18 year old German immigrant who lived in Pomeroy, Ohio. He was a barber...we laughed because of his last name, Schorn.

He was my children's great great great grandfather. My husbands ancestor.

Charles Schorn (1842-1915) - Find A Grave Memorial (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/6860972/charles-schorn)

Pomeroy is right smack dab on the Mason Dixon line, the Ohio River. Nobody I know, North or South, and we have a passel of friends who grew up in the South, ever supported slavery. We have got to stop casting blame at people now living and making problems where there are none.

[Topspinmo]

I like when somebody writes book for money and people read it. Some think just cause it's book it's got to be true (just line the on internet) when the truth be known the author in it for the money. The more controversial the more opinionated and the more money. book about the villages good example.

[TimeForChange]

"Different States had different reasons for joining the 'Confederacy. They were States Rights, Lincoln's election, economic issues, slavery." Quote from Civil War historian John Coski. Actually the State where the war began (South Carolina) was more upset and concerned about States Rights than anything else. They took Ft. Sumter from the US and the rebellion began. Lincoln then called for volunteers to stop the rebellion.

[TimeForChange]

This is a history thread. Don't know what Latinos and modern day hate crimes has to do with the Civil War. I suppose some may say that is where it all started but that is simply not the case.

[TimeForChange]

I think that is a little over board. If you want to find those kinds of posters or people just get on twitter. I was born and raised and have lived most all my life in the South. My Father taught us to respect all races. I saw a lot of racism while serving my Country in Vietnam. In many cases it came from different races. I was there when both MLK and R. Kennedy were killed. That was a bad time and I felt for all.

[Bucco]

This is a history thread. Don't know what Latinos and modern day hate crimes has to do with the Civil War. I suppose some may say that is where it all started but that is simply not the case.

Point taken, and I agree. I posted what you object to.....without context, you are 100% correct.

I was responding to a poster who referred directly to this forum. I simply objected to the hypocrisy.

Never implied anything except to respond to that post, which is also deleted.

As a student if history, I get it, but learning from history does not stop with specifics, as we see much of the same conditions now as we did them. I do see a relationship between the feelings in the Civil War era and today, a very direct relationship.

Social media simply puts everything in capital letters.

[rustyp]

Here is a good 20 minute video on some of the "reasons" for the Civil War. It is by a high school teacher and history scholar in Buffalo NY by the name of Hip Hughes. If only he were my history teacher I might have paid attention in history class.

YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXo9tRB4S3E)

[John_W]

Here is a good 20 minute video on some of the "reasons" for the Civil War. It is by a high school teacher and history scholar in Buffalo NY by the name of Hip Hughes. If only he were my history teacher I might have paid attention in history class.

YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXo9tRB4S3E)

Looks like he got this presentation style from Robert Wuhl who had a classroom history show on HBO about 15 years ago. It kept you interested by using pop culture references. Here's a small sample.

Assume the Position 201 Judge Slowly - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S9uto7vxdI&list=PLAYznrQxJzl-V4fp5szaovgU1V6dVh6zw)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The election of Lincoln is what caused the southern states to secede. Lincoln promised (or threatened, depending on which side you were on) the end to slavery in the country. The South wanted to maintain their freedom to own slaves. The North's primary issue was with the secession. They wanted to keep the states united.

So the two "causes" of the Civil War: the south's demand to keep slavery and the North's rejection of the secession.

The two were intertwined, but there would have been no war, if the south's insistence upon keeping slaves hadn't divided the nation into "north vs. south" in the first place.

[Marathon Man]

"The Recent Unpleasantness", is an expression used in the 19th century in the southern United States as an idiom to refer to the American Civil War and its aftermath.

Because I am the one who used this idiomatic expression earlier on this thread and it was misunderstood, and my post was deleted, I felt the need to explain it. It is an expression that I read and remembered, not something I made up as light hearted. It also does not refer to any political situations that happened recently. The term "The recent Unpleasantness" was a euphemism used in literature prior to 1900 to refer to the American Civil War. Please feel free to google it.

the recent unpleasantness - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=D0o2XsDZIMLJ5gKJxKygDg&q=the+recent+unpleasantness&oq=The+recent+un&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l3j0i22i30l7.8780.19616..21848...4.0..0.13 6.1474.18j1....2..0....1..gws-wiz.....6..0i131j0i10j0i362i308i154i357.kzax0PzeUK s)

Yes, I knew that and understood your first post. I suspect others did also.

[anothersteve]

Here is a good 20 minute video on some of the "reasons" for the Civil War. It is by a high school teacher and history scholar in Buffalo NY by the name of Hip Hughes. If only he were my history teacher I might have paid attention in history class.

YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXo9tRB4S3E)

Bingo!
Thanks!
Steve

[ColdNoMore]

Most people who do not live in the South do not know this. I will tell about my ancestors experience. They were farmers in Missouri and owned no slaves . Just like all wars it was about the government’s decision, not the decision of the people. So why did southerners fight in the war?
General Order No. 11 (1863 - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1863))
My ancestors were forced from their home, livestock confiscated, homes and crops were burned. Women and children walked from Missouri to Texas to seek refuge from the war with many dying along the way. This is why they fought....To protect their livelihood and families from becoming destitute. This is why some still proudly cling to the Confederate flag; to honor those who suffered and lost everything they had. Yes, we lost the war but just as slavery was not something to be proud of, the treatment of citizens of the South was nothing to be proud of either. As they say, war is Hell and it’s effects are not easily forgotten.

First of all, your link doesn't show/say anything...except to go to THIS link.

General Order No. 11 (1863) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1863))

You're welcome. :ho:

Secondly, your ancestors wouldn't have had to move, had they not sided with those traitors who wanted to destroy the UNITED States of America...and wanted to maintain the abhorrent practice of slavery.

That info is in my correct link.



Finally...
Yes, we lost the war but just as slavery was not something to be proud of, the treatment of citizens of the South was nothing to be proud of either.
Trying to equate the two as even being similar (one being a choice...the other NOT)...is beyond the pale.

And as a quick reminder of THE FACTS...

CLICK HERE (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/1714739-post3.html)


.

[Carla B]

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to interfere with this thread, but whenever CNM replies with a quote, as in #33, I cannot read the quote. It comes out orange print on the tan background. Especially, when using the tiny font it is simply unreadable. Anyone else have that issue? If not I'll not mention it again.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to interfere with this thread, but whenever CNM replies with a quote, as in #33, I cannot read the quote. It comes out orange print on the tan background. Especially, when using the tiny font it is simply unreadable. Anyone else have that issue? If not I'll not mention it again.

Yes, he has chosen a "skin" that isn't very compatible to the default. But you can press your mouse to the top of his post and drag it down to highlight the whole thing, and then it's completely readable.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Also - perrjojo's ancestors lost the war BECAUSE slavery was not something to be proud of, not despite that fact.

[ColdNoMore]

Yes, he has chosen a "skin" that isn't very compatible to the default. But you can press your mouse to the top of his post and drag it down to highlight the whole thing, and then it's completely readable.

Actually, I haven't "chosen" any skin, as I have always used the standard one that was here...when I signed up (tan/green).

I do bold and use dark orange on what I quote, but it shows up on a green background for me though.

Dark orange letters on a green background...should be pretty easy on the eyes.

I've always had issues reading quotes, from folks who use red letters...with a green background myself.

I've heard a couple of other people mention that they can't read my posts because of the font being small, so have even started making the normal responses in either font size 2 or 3 (versus the standard '1').

I believe everyone that has had problems reading them, have been using Apple products and one person said they were able to adjust their own device for this site...and the problem went away.

Maybe a mod can chime in...and suggest something? :shrug:

[ColdNoMore]

Here is my skin setting.

As shown, I am using "Forum Default." :shrug:

[perrjojo]

First of all, your link doesn't show/say anything...except to go to THIS link.

General Order No. 11 (1863) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1863))

You're welcome. :ho:

Secondly, your ancestors wouldn't have had to move, had they not sided with those traitors who wanted to destroy the UNITED States of America...and wanted to maintain the abhorrent practice of slavery.

That info is in my correct link.



Finally...

Trying to equate the two as even being similar (one being a choice...the other NOT)...is beyond the pale.

And as a quick reminder of THE FACTS...

CLICK HERE (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/1714739-post3.html)


.
My ancestors did not side with anyone but merely wanted to farm their land and live in peace. Thank you for educating me on how much smarter you are than I.

[perrjojo]

Also - perrjojo's ancestors lost the war BECAUSE slavery was not something to be proud of, not despite that fact.
My ancestors did not fight in the war. They were Victims of the war with no real ”skin in the game” other than where the happen to live. Unfortunately any war has many innocent victims.

[anothersteve]

My ancestors did not side with anyone but merely wanted to farm their land and live in peace. Thank you for educating me on how much smarter you are than I.

There are some here who think in just black and white.... and before anyone gets their panties hot, that's just a saying.

My ancestors did not fight in the war. They were Victims of the war with no real ”skin in the game” other than where the happen to live. Unfortunately any war has many innocent victims.

Again, some just think in black and white, with no middle ground,
you're for or against, you're a racist, bigot or not, I'm right you are wrong..............they just can't see, or don't want to see, learn, the whole picture. This discussion on The Civil War is a perfect example. These are the people you cannot argue or discuss delicate subjects with.
I'm always up for a good discussion but when people show their disrespect, and condescending, demeaning attitude towards others when they think and act "smarter", my way or the highway crap, the civil discussion ends.
Steve

[ColdNoMore]

My ancestors did not fight in the war. They were Victims of the war with no real ”skin in the game” other than where the happen to live. Unfortunately any war has many innocent victims.

They weren't "victims" they made a choice to back the nation's traitors, just read the redirect in your own link...or the correct one I provided.



And a general comment: It has nothing to do with anyone "acting smarter," it's simply a matter of a thirst for knowledge, having an open mind, a willingness to do research and looking for actual facts...from legitimate sources.

If someone isn't willing to make even that modicum of effort, then it is totally disingenuous and incorrect to ascribe some type of demeaning/condescending/superior attitude toward those...who are willing to do it.

A few of us who try to back up what we're saying with links, are constantly belittled by some who refuse to look at anything that might conflict...with their own strongly held bias.

THAT'S what a debate/discussion is supposed to be about, not just simply offering opinions and then trying to project onto others...what you yourself are doing. :ohdear:

[ColdNoMore]

OK guilty. I guess "someone" had to start.
Steve

Not true.

No one "had" to start bringing politics into it...you chose to do it.

Post #11 of this thread (poke here) (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/1714802-post11.html)

At least you admit to it, so you get a brownie point for that. :thumbup:

[anothersteve]

They weren't "victims" they made a choice to back the nation's traitors, just read the redirect in your own link...or the correct one I provided.



And a general comment: It has nothing to do with anyone "acting smarter," it's simply a matter of a thirst for knowledge, having an open mind, a willingness to do research and looking for actual facts...from legitimate sources.

If someone isn't willing to make even that modicum of effort, then it is totally disingenuous and incorrect to ascribe some type of demeaning/condescending/superior attitude toward those...who are willing to do it.

A few of us who try to back up what we're saying with links, are constantly belittled by some who refuse to look at anything that might conflict...with their own strongly held bias.

THAT'S what a debate/discussion is supposed to be about, not just simply offering opinions and then trying to project onto others...what you yourself are doing. :ohdear:



There is and was plenty of discussion, with a few links I might ad, by others, of the facts of,
and the history of The Civil War....FROM IT'S VERY BEGINNINGS . And for anyone with a modicum of knowledge about it no links are or should be necessary if you are smarter than a sixth grader.
Steve

[anothersteve]

Not true.

No one "had" to start bringing politics into it...you chose to do it.

Post #11 of this thread (poke here) (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/1714802-post11.html)

At least you admit to it, so you get a brownie point for that. :thumbup:

You seem to be smarter than a sixth grader, where exactly did you think your thread would go?

[JimJohnson]

ColdNoMore.:bigbow:
Thank you for this thread and posts. You give me hope that we are still on a good path in America. I still have friends, family and neighbors that hold views that the confederates should have won. I also thank TOTV for allowing this thread to continue. Any topic too sensitive to talk about can never get better.
:pray:

[Bay Kid]

Just as a point of history the North wasn't, didn't fight to end slavery, they were fighting to preserve the Union. So don't think at that time the the North was so high and mighty. The south wanted to secede from the Union for more reasons than the "right" to "own" slaves as property. Granted that turned out to be the primary reason in history. It was a really crappy time in America's history, and to say that hatred and bigotry is as prevalent today as it was then is pure garbage and what the far left would like you to believe. How many of you see it in your daily lives instead of what the media spews out on an almost daily basis? Personally I see more good in this world than evil, been that way my whole life......maybe I've been living in a bubble for the past 63yrs,........or just maybe I don't take the media and any talking heads to heart.

OK.....now let's see who will be the first to bring modern politics into the fray.
Steve

Taxes were a major reason.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Cold No More: The default for quotes is a beige background. So dark orange on beige is incredibly difficult to read for those of us who have not selected any other colors for anything and use the forum's default. We don't see a green background. But as I said - we can just highlight the quote and see it clearly, black text on ivory background, just like reading a real piece of paper :)

[Carla B]

Cold No More: The default for quotes is a beige background. So dark orange on beige is incredibly difficult to read for those of us who have not selected any other colors for anything and use the forum's default. We don't see a green background. But as I said - we can just highlight the quote and see it clearly, black text on ivory background, just like reading a real piece of paper :)

Thank you OBB. Apparently, he is using the Old Version of TOTV, which will go away anyway. Orange on Sahara Tan just won't get it and I doubt I will do the extra step of highlighting. Just plain old black text is good enough for most of us.

[fishon]

Can I proclaim my social justice warrior superiority by arguing for a war fought 160 years ago?

Asking for a friend.

[Bucco]

Can I proclaim my social justice warrior superiority by arguing for a war fought 160 years ago?

Asking for a friend.

From my point of view you can tell your "friend" that history is probably the most important area to understand and discuss.

I believe that history does teach as do most, but so often a negative historical event was the result of ignoring the past. I think those that posted are not "arguing" but discussing and offering viewpoints of that time in our history.

Disagreeing on events is not a bad thing EVER. Study is never bad.

TO demean those that study history and see it different than you instead of offering a thought out rationale for your opinion is, to me, a symptom of a total lack of understanding of the past, present or future.

TO ignore history and decide it is not to be talked about or studied, or understood by perspective is shallow and a blunt way to kill off debate.

Americans need to understand that that history is not just facts adding up to an agreed-upon narrative but rather a never-ending debate.

Debates like this forum started out are great. Some posters say forget it because it does not fit my idea of what it should be. I say, LISTEN AND LEARN. I spent most of my life in the world of government and those who I considered great men or women were not simply those I agreed with, but those who respected historical implications of the present on the future. If I did not agree, I still listened and learned and probably learned better lessons from those who disagreed with my viewpoint.

Every new idea needs context and knowing history helps provides context.

[ColdNoMore]

Cold No More: The default for quotes is a beige background. So dark orange on beige is incredibly difficult to read for those of us who have not selected any other colors for anything and use the forum's default. We don't see a green background. But as I said - we can just highlight the quote and see it clearly, black text on ivory background, just like reading a real piece of paper :)

As I showed with my attachment, I'm using the "default" and the quotes...has a green background.

You may want to check your own skin options.

Regardless, once I'm forced to use the newer version, which I'm not going to yet as I don't know if I can get back to the original/this version...I'll pick something different. :shrug:

[ColdNoMore]

From my point of view you can tell your "friend" that history is probably the most important area to understand and discuss.

I believe that history does teach as do most, but so often a negative historical event was the result of ignoring the past. I think those that posted are not "arguing" but discussing and offering viewpoints of that time in our history.

Disagreeing on events is not a bad thing EVER. Study is never bad.

TO demean those that study history and see it different than you instead of offering a thought out rationale for your opinion is, to me, a symptom of a total lack of understanding of the past, present or future.

TO ignore history and decide it is not to be talked about or studied, or understood by perspective is shallow and a blunt way to kill off debate.

Americans need to understand that that history is not just facts adding up to an agreed-upon narrative but rather a never-ending debate.

Debates like this forum started out are great. Some posters say forget it because it does not fit my idea of what it should be. I say, LISTEN AND LEARN. I spent most of my life in the world of government and those who I considered great men or women were not simply those I agreed with, but those who respected historical implications of the present on the future. If I did not agree, I still listened and learned and probably learned better lessons from those who disagreed with my viewpoint.

Every new idea needs context and knowing history helps provides context.

Excellent points.

I could live with just a "lack of understanding" (after all, some folks through no fault of their own...will just never "get it"), it's when a conscious decision is made to purposely refuse to understand and/or acknowledge facts...is where I have a problem. :ohdear: