Monday, November 23, 2009

...then what was the Civil War about?

Sure, the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Right. You keep telling yourself that.

To tell you the truth, I've never read a book about the Civil War in my life. Personally, I was satisfied with what the American Public School System indoctrinated me with. So everyone that calls the war by it's other made-up names, like "The War of Northern Aggression," or "The War of Southern Independence," could be absolutely correct. And I'm not going to try to correct them. Plus, I think it's cute how they try to make themselves the heroes.

Thing is, changing the name of the war doesn't make it NOT a civil war. "The North vs. the South" is the definition of a Civil War. And it's not like anyone recognized your secession. You couldn't even come up with an original name. "Confederate States of America" sounds like a less-desirous knock off, like "Velvet Revolver" compared to "Guns N' Roses."

So what if you change the name or say the war was about something else? All of the people fighting for the South were still slaveowners, so no one gives a shit about their other problems. That's like saying the Nazis were killing the Jews because of high-interest loans AND because they were Jewish. Like other people who were crippled by finance charges are going to suddenly start defending the Nazis.

See, the slavery part is all we care about, mostly because it was a fucked up part of our past. Who really cares about states' rights, anyway? The only people who care about states' rights are the people who really want to do something crazy, but the Federal Government won't let them. It's not like the government is keeping them from doing something positive, like rescuing orphans from fire-breathing dragons. They're mad because the Feds are keeping them from doing something like bringing back slavery in some states, where "Nigger Hound" would be a glorious job title.

Yet, some folks barely want to admit that slavery was even a factor. They dress it up by saying, "The North was trying to tell the South that it couldn't run its economy how it wanted." And that would sound pretty good if the North was trying to tear down your low-emission, green factories that run on hydrogen and love. But no, the lynchpin of your economy was INVOLUNTARY HUMAN LABOR, so it had to come down at some point, even if the slaves were horrible genetic mistakes, like German people. And if you didn't have the foresight to prepare for the end of that sweetheart deal after 400 years, then you deserve losing everything. With financial preparation like that, I can only imagine how they would have handled the Great Depression.

Just be glad that things changed this way instead of at the hands of a group of slaves, tendering their resignation by choking white people with their shackles.

So, why SHOULD we care about any other possible factors? They all sound like justification for continuing slavery to me, and at this point, it's should be pretty obvious to all involved that Black folks thoughts on the matter are pretty much concrete. Not that they really care about what Black people think, because let's face it, these folks are either racists or bigots. Anyone arguing in favor of the South during the Civil War can probably count all the Black people they've met.

I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why I should even listen to the argument. It ain't like I'm gonna suddenly gonna hang pictures of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis next to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. And it's possible that they were good men, but I don't really care, because in the end, they were fighting to keep my people enslaved. I guess if you wanted me to hear you out, you should have fought a little bit harder when Sherman was burning down Atlanta.

No comments: