Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Oct '17 21:11
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/24/stono-rebellion-slave-uprising-commemoration-monuments-confederate

    "A sign on scrubland marks one of America's largest slave uprisings.
    Is this how to remember black heroes?
    The Stono rebellion of 1739 was the biggest slave rebellion in Britain’s
    North American colonies but it is barely commemorated – unlike Confederate leaders."

    "he slaves met on a Sunday morning, close to the Stono river. Plantation
    owners tended to go to church on Sundays, and would leave them unattended.
    A man named Jemmy had gathered them together. Described in reports as
    an “Angolan” who could read and write, Jemmy had talked the men through
    his plan the night before.

    There were about 20 men in total. They marched to Hutchenson’s Store,
    14 miles west of Charleston, South Carolina, and killed two white men.
    They then loaded up on pistols and gunpowder, and headed south.
    Jemmy was leading them towards the then-Spanish territory of Florida,
    where he had heard slaves could live as free men.

    The men marched from the store to a house belonging to a white man named Godfrey.
    They burned the house to the ground and killed Godfrey, his wife, and his son and daughter.

    When the slaves arrived at the home of a man called Lemy they killed him,
    his wife, and their child. They did spare a man named Wallace, who owned
    a tavern. He was considered a kind slave owner. But every other home
    they passed they torched.

    It was 9 September 1739, and Jemmy was leading what became known
    as the Stono rebellion – one of the largest slave uprisings in what was
    then the North American colonies.

    The men would not make it to Florida. They wouldn’t even come close."

    "As Jemmy and his group made their way south-west, more slaves joined the
    Stono rebellion. Their number had swelled to about 100 men before they were
    spotted, by chance, by South Carolina’s lieutenant governor, William Bull.
    Bull rounded up a militia, and they confronted the slaves in the middle of
    a field near the Edisto river, a winding stretch of water that meets the
    Atlantic Ocean 50 miles north of the South Carolina-Georgia border.

    A battle ensued. Accounts from the time say the slaves fought bravely,
    but they were outnumbered and their opponents were better armed.
    The majority of the rebels were slaughtered. Some were taken back to
    plantations and returned to slavery. About 30 escaped, but were later
    rounded up and killed. The plantation owners mounted some of the
    slaves’ heads on sticks along the main road, as a warning to others.
    Jemmy and his men had made it just 15 miles."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stono_Rebellion

    "The Stono Rebellion (sometimes called Cato's Conspiracy or Cato's Rebellion)
    was a slave rebellion that began on 9 September 1739, in the colony of
    South Carolina. It was the largest slave uprising in the British mainland
    colonies, with 42-47 whites and 44 blacks killed."
  2. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    24 Oct '17 22:09
    I've just finished watching a ten part television history of the Vietnam War, which in the UK can be downloaded from the BBC iPlayer. Very sobering. The Vietnamese had already defeated and driven out the French when John F Kennedy had the idea of intervening, despite being warned very clearly that he was making a dreadful mistake. It seems his motivation was that he was losing votes over a perceived weakness in the face of communism and had already suffered too many setbacks. So purely for the sake of votes in US elections, he and then Johnson and then Nixon conducted a long series of barbaric and unjustifiable campaigns, all [every one] known in advance to be incapable of victory, before Nixon finally organised a dishonourable withdrawal and abandoned US allies. Meanwhile Nixon showed that it was far more sensible to abandon the blockade of China and Russia, enter into diplomatic and then trade relationships, and move on. Today, Vietnam, China and Russia all have trade and social relationships with the West.

    In short, 58,600 odd US soldiers (millions of Vietnamese) died to demonstrate the futility of US wars in countries they do not even begin to understand let alone respect, while when the US tried normal diplomacy instead they found all doors could be opened, and from that we have learned....

    ...to promote war and economic blockades.

    Terrific. Keep up the history lessons but ffs stop listening to American (US) historians while they are just peddling nationalist propaganda.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Oct '17 22:572 edits
    Here's a new book about the USA's cover-up of Japanese war crimes in China:

    _Hidden Atrocities: Japanese Germ Warfare and American Obstruction of Justice at the Tokyo Trial_
    by Jeanne Guillemin (2017 Columbia University Press)

    This book should be an update on this one:
    _Factories Of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932-1945, and the American Cover-Up_
    by Sheldon Harris (Routledge, originally published in 1994)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Guillemin

    "Jeanne Harley Guillemin (born 1943) is a medical anthropologist and author, who for 25 years
    was a Professor of Sociology at Boston College and for the last ten years, a senior fellow
    in the Security Studies Program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1]
    She is an authority on biological weapons and has published four books on the topic."

    Here's Amazon's blurb about the book:
    "Yet the Tokyo Trial failed to prosecute imperial Japanese leaders for the worst of war crimes:
    inhumane medical experimentation, including vivisection and open-air pathogen and chemical tests,
    which rivaled Nazi atrocities, as well as mass attacks using plague, anthrax, and cholera that
    killed thousands of Chinese civilians. In Hidden Atrocities, Jeanne Guillemin goes behind the
    scenes at the trial to reveal the American obstruction that denied justice to Japan’s victims."

    This blurb understates the facts. In fact, Japan's prolific usage of biological and chemical
    weapons was worse than what the Nazis did. As far as is known, Germany did not use
    biological or chemical weapons, even though it had the most advanced chemical weapons.
    (There's a disputed claim that the USSR used biological weapons against Germany.)

    One reason why Westerners prefer to take Japanese biological or chemical warfare lightly is their racism.
    Westerners tend to regard Chinese lives as far beneath the value of white lives, if having any value at all.
    When an American television program ('investigative journalism' ) covered this issue, its
    only concern was to answer the primary question: "Were any Americans the victims of
    these Japanese war crimes?) or the secondary questions: "Were any Westerners the victims?"
    As far as the Western media tends to be concerned, Japan could use biological or chemical
    weapons to kill as many Asians as it pleased, with hardly any moral objection from the West.

    After the war, the USA pardoned, recruited, employed, and paid Japanese scientists and doctors
    (who were responsible for terrible war crimes in China) to develop biological weapons for the USA.
    American scientists used the data obtained by Japanese experiments upon living Chinese.
    These US biological weapons then may have been used (the evidence is circumstantial and
    disputed) by the USA to attack populations in North Korea and China during the Korean War.
    These Japanese scientists and doctors (honored for their work by the USA) tended to rise
    to prominent positions in Japan's postwar academic, scientific, and medical establishments
  4. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    25 Oct '17 01:494 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/24/stono-rebellion-slave-uprising-commemoration-monuments-confederate

    "A sign on scrubland marks one of America's largest slave uprisings.
    Is this how to remember black heroes?
    The Stono rebellion of 1739 was the biggest slave rebellion in Britain’s
    North American colonies but it is barely commemorated ...[text shortened]... gest slave uprising in the British mainland
    colonies, with 42-47 whites and 44 blacks killed."
    You know how all 300 million+ Americans remember history?? That would require a massive amount of research, and I don't think you've done that Duchess. 😲
  5. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    25 Oct '17 01:55
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    I've just finished watching a ten part television history of the Vietnam War, which in the UK can be downloaded from the BBC iPlayer. Very sobering. The Vietnamese had already defeated and driven out the French when John F Kennedy had the idea of intervening, despite being warned very clearly that he was making a dreadful mistake. It seems his motivati ...[text shortened]... top listening to American (US) historians while they are just peddling nationalist propaganda.
    Even before President Kennedy's time, military advisers were dispatched to South Vietnam
    by President Eisenhower. That was in the late 50s. Major escalations occurred in the 60s
    under President Johnson, widening the war to stem the perceived "threat" of communism.

    I think Ken Burns did a creditable job in showing what a monumental mistake the entire operation was.
  6. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    25 Oct '17 09:078 edits
    Originally posted by @handyandy
    Even before President Kennedy's time, military advisers were dispatched to South Vietnam
    by President Eisenhower. That was in the late 50s. Major escalations occurred in the 60s
    under President Johnson, widening the war to stem the perceived "threat" of communism.

    I think Ken Burns did a creditable job in showing what a monumental mistake the entire operation was.
    Ah indeed - The Quiet American by Graham Greene said it all in 1951. It's a terrifying book to re-read as an informed adult, compared to my naive understanding of the book as a teenager in the Sixties.

    The novel has received much attention due to its prediction of the outcome of the Vietnam War and subsequent American foreign policy since the 1950s. Graham Greene portrays a U.S. official named Pyle as so blinded by American exceptionalism that he cannot see the calamities he brings upon the Vietnamese. It was adapted as two different movies, one in 1958 and another in 2002. The book uses Greene's experiences as a war correspondent for The Times and Le Figaro in French Indochina 1951–1954. He was apparently inspired to write The Quiet American during October 1951 while driving back to Saigon from Ben Tre province. He was accompanied by an American aid worker who lectured him about finding a "third force in Vietnam”

    But to be clear, according to the tv series, everyone involved knew they were making a "mistake" and did it anyway because they had their own agendas. There is a danger of blaming the public or public opinion or the voters. Of course public opinion and the popular vote were crucially important - so the public and the voters were lied to. It seems to me that the challenge all the time was about keeping track of all the lies and trying to make reality fit something resembling the false account already issued. Even Nixon, working to exit Vietnam, was tied to the lies of his predecessors because of course he could not afford the truth to get out on his own treacherous contributions. His invocation of the "Silent Majority" was an inspired lie, to invent and then appeal to a fictional public that itself was a lie.
  7. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65546
    25 Oct '17 10:301 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/24/stono-rebellion-slave-uprising-commemoration-monuments-confederate

    "A sign on scrubland marks one of America's largest slave uprisings.
    Is this how to remember black heroes?
    The Stono rebellion of 1739 was the biggest slave rebellion in Britain’s
    North American colonies but it is barely commemorated ...[text shortened]... gest slave uprising in the British mainland
    colonies, with 42-47 whites and 44 blacks killed."
    What is your point here, that everyone should remember everything in a certain way and that people like yourself should set that agenda?

    Is your problem here that they put up a statue to that guy but forget about this guy?

    If you're opposed to state sponsored memorials and 'signs in scrubland' then I'm with you all the way. Privatise memorials, then those that have an issue with the size and scope of this, that or the other memorial can put their hand in their pocket and we can stop with your ridiculous nationalistic generalisations.

    I look forward to, and welcome, your maturation.
  8. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    25 Oct '17 11:01
    Originally posted by @mchill
    You know how all 300 million+ Americans remember history?? That would require a massive amount of research, and I don't think you've done that Duchess. 😲
    Spurious and personal attack. You do not need to go there. Why not just engage with an interesting topic?

    The thread title is of course a question and not a statement. We could ask such a question without knowing the attitudes of a single, solitary American, let alone that attitudes of millions. You could approach this question by replying, for example, that Americans are diverse and some Americans are very decent and have great memories. After all, it was Americans demanding and implementing the removal of Confederate statutes. Some people would include Black Americans under the category "Americans" and give credit for their fight against racist history as part of an alternative "America". You know the drill. There is lots of room for intelligent conversation here before we need to revert to the personal attack.

    The ONLY relevant words in the offending post were these:

    "Is this how to remember black heroes? The Stono rebellion of 1739 was the biggest slave rebellion in Britain’s North American colonies but it is barely commemorated – unlike Confederate leaders."

    The language as you will see is perfectly objective and I see no statement whatsoever that could be interpreted as a sweeping generalisation about all Americans. It is your imagination, excited by a highly defensive nationalism, that has leaped to an unjustified belief and off you go, protecting the flag against foreign incursion, like the way our brain sometimes reacts to movement in our peripheral vision on the assumption that it might be a tiger.

    As it happens, it is of course perfectly legitimate to make generalisations about Americans, their attitudes to history, their political behaviour. For example, one can discuss American foreign policy quite coherently without needing to demonstrate that it reflects the specific attitudes of 300 or 400 million Americans. My post about Graham Greene, for example, specifically points out that there is a big gap between what American public opinion may have been in reality and the way it was misrepresented, for example by Nixon with his spurious appeal to the mythical 'Silent Majority' (all of whose opinions Nixon of course could describe with unerring accuracy as agreeing with him and disagreeing with the millions of protestors against him).

    One can talk also about Americans without having to bother clarifying that many Americans do not live in the United States, owing to the limits of its imperial expansion and ethnic cleansing across the two American continents. All of these generalisations are perfectly legitimate and are not touched by the type of argument deployed in your post.

    Not all Americans are fascists, but America is moving towards fully blown fascism. It is a good thing to question American attitudes to History.
  9. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    25 Oct '17 11:072 edits
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    What is your point here, that everyone should remember everything in a certain way and that people like yourself should set that agenda?

    Is your problem here that they put up a statue to that guy but forget about this guy?

    If you're opposed to state sponsored memorials and 'signs in scrubland' then I'm with you all the way. Privatise memorials, then t ...[text shortened]... ridiculous nationalistic generalisations.

    I look forward to, and welcome, your maturation.
    No. Her point clearly is that the way we do represent our history reflects our attitudes. Hence, it is relevant today to explore alternative representations of history.

    Of course, objecting to the use of racist symbolism in public spaces is legitimate. Similarly, it is legitimate to ask for better public representation to commemorate the battle against racism.

    It is an abuse of so called freedom to use it as a pretext for oppression. The alternative to public accountability is the law of the jungle, in which those with most power dictate to the rest. That is not freedom. Without democratic forms of governance, vested interests can and do abuse their power. Freedom requires an agency to establish the ground rules for freedom and that is why we need democratic governance.

    To be intolerant of intolerance is legitimate.
  10. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    25 Oct '17 12:312 edits
    Originally posted by @mchill
    You know how all 300 million+ Americans remember history?? That would require a massive amount of research, and I don't think you've done that Duchess. 😲
    Maybe, anyway, there is more point considering how Americans on this forum respond to history. The thumbs down given to my posts on another thread, pointing out the racist way the New Deal introduced redlining so that 98% of mortgages were given exclusively to White families, is a case in point. The legacy of such a policy is profound. Consider for example what we know of the difference between a home owner and a tenant, on so many levels. Home owners by virtue of being home owners have a stake in their home, their neighbourhood, their community in a way that tenants by virtue of being tenants don't. Home owners, as they repay their mortgages, accumulate financial capital in the family and transfer this to their children in a way that tenants cannot. Of course, even the architecture of building for rent is different to building for home ownership. Profound and systematic gaps inevitably must open up between Black and White families as a direct and predictable consequence of such policies.

    Without understanding that history, it is harder to understand its consequences playing out on the streets of so many American cities and towns.
  11. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    25 Oct '17 14:332 edits
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    I've just finished watching a ten part television history of the Vietnam War, which in the UK can be downloaded from the BBC iPlayer. Very sobering. The Vietnamese had already defeated and driven out the French when John F Kennedy had the idea of intervening, despite being warned very clearly that he was making a dreadful mistake. It seems his motivati ...[text shortened]... top listening to American (US) historians while they are just peddling nationalist propaganda.
    === Keep up the history lessons but ffs stop listening to American (US) historians while they are just peddling nationalist propaganda. ===

    I get that you're not American and all and perhaps can't be expected to see beyond what the Ameriphobes dupe you into believing, but your implication that the American historians peddle nationalist propaganda about the Vietnam war is downright ignorant. In fact, it is virtually a matter of consensus in popular American history and education that the Vietnam war was both wrong and a strategic mistake.
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    25 Oct '17 14:36
    Originally posted by @sh76
    === Keep up the history lessons but ffs stop listening to American (US) historians while they are just peddling nationalist propaganda. ===

    I get that you're not American and all and perhaps can't be expected to see beyond what the Ameriphobes dupe you into believing, but your implication that the American historians peddle nationalist propaganda about the ...[text shortened]... ular American history and education that the Vietnam war was both wrong and a strategic mistake.
    Don't listen to him Fin.

    Just keep telling yourself, Europeans good, American bad, Europeans good, Americans bad.............

    See, it's all better now.
  13. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    25 Oct '17 15:53
    Originally posted by @sh76
    === Keep up the history lessons but ffs stop listening to American (US) historians while they are just peddling nationalist propaganda. ===

    I get that you're not American and all and perhaps can't be expected to see beyond what the Ameriphobes dupe you into believing, but your implication that the American historians peddle nationalist propaganda about the ...[text shortened]... ular American history and education that the Vietnam war was both wrong and a strategic mistake.
    Thinking of the Vietnam War as a mistake, an aberration in America's otherwise morally correct behaviour abroad, sort of sanitises it and puts it to one side. Seeing it as part of a pattern of immoral and racist American attitudes to foreign policy is what is required.

    Which other US foreign intervention since then would you like to discuss and justify?
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    25 Oct '17 15:58
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    Thinking of the Vietnam War as a mistake, an aberration in America's otherwise morally correct behaviour abroad, sort of sanitises it and puts it to one side. Seeing it as part of a pattern of immoral and racist American attitudes to foreign policy is what is required.

    Which other US foreign intervention since then would you like to discuss and justify?
    I know my teacher in school burned a cross during history class and loved Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

    I was taught that the democrat party tried to save the US by breaking free of the Republican abolitionists, but sadly failed. 😞
  15. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    25 Oct '17 16:27
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I know my teacher in school burned a cross during history class and loved Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

    I was taught that the democrat party tried to save the US by breaking free of the Republican abolitionists, but sadly failed. 😞
    I expect then you were taught that the Southern Democrats were the party of segregation and lynching, holding FDR to ransom and perverting the New Deal into affirmative action for Whites. Then you were taught that with the imposition of civil rights legislation in the late Sixties they jumped to the Republican side, where their racist politics retain a comfortable continuity.

    Isn't history interesting?
Back to Top