WOMEN'S AWARENESS MONTH KICK-OFF EVENT!!!!
bill T
DATE: Monday, March 13, 2000
TIME: 7PM
LOCATION: Atrium of the Dupree College of Management
COST: Absolutely Free!!!
DESCRIPTION: Linda Simensky is the Vice President of original animation for
the Cartoon Network, a division of Turner Broadcasting. As well as
overseeing production and development of new animated shorts and established
Cartoon Network shows such as The PowerPuff Girls,Dexter's Laboratory, and
Johnny Bravo, she participates in scheduling and new program development and
other areas for the entire network. Ms. Simensky will be speaking about
women's role in the media and her experiences as VP of a major media
network. Reception sponsored by the Dupree College of Management.
BIO: Linda Simensky, Vice President of Original Animation-Cartoon Network
Linda Simensky is vice president of original animation for Cartoon Network.
In this capacity, she oversees the development and production of all new
Cartoon Cartoon shorts as well as original animated series, such as Courage
the Cowardly Dog, Mike, Lu & Og, I Am Weasel, The Powerpuff Girls, Ed, Edd n
Eddy, Dexter's Laboratory, Johnny Bravo and Cow and Chicken.
Simensky has also been involved in all aspects of programming and
development for the network, including scheduling, acquisitions, program
operations and original programming and development.
Prior to joining Cartoon Network, Simensky worked with Nickelodeon, where
she most recently served as director of animation, searching for new
projects as well as seeking out new creators. Simensky had been with
Nickelodeon since 1985, working in various positions within the programming
and animation departments. In her career with Nickelodeon, Simensky worked
on several pilots including "Rocko's Modern Life," which she helped to
develop with the show's creator, and developed and produced many pilots for
Nicktoons and Nick Jr.
Simensky is also involved with numerous committees and organizations that
support animation. She is the president of ASIFA-East (International
Society of Animation) and the founder of the New York chapter of Women in
Animation. She also lectures at numerous colleges and animation festivals
across the country, and has taught courses in animation at the School of
Visual Arts in New York.
Simensky holds a BA in Communications & History from the University of
Pennsylvania and an MA in Media Ecology from New York University.
**
For more information about this and other events for WAM 2000, check out
the webpage at http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/wam
**
If you'd like to be on the mailing list, send email to
As the message body of the email, type
subscribe wam-general <your email> <your name>
Problems? Email gt8...@prism.gatech.edu for help.
**
WAM 2000
**
--
\ William Tranmer \ ...... Women's Awareness Month Webmaster .... /
\ Home: (404)206-4032 \ ..... Student Center Projectionist ........ /
\ Work: (770)399-3434 \ .... Festival Logistics ................. /
Benjamin David Garrison
between, sadly...
--
Ben Garrison * gte941n@prism * ICQ#20300203 * IM ben628496 * www.ben.f2s.com
- There are (-(limit((cosx-1)/x^2,x->0))*(pi/ln(i^i))^2) kinds of people
in the world: those who can do calculus, and those who can't.
sport death
> Yes...I was aware that there were women on campus...few and far
> between, sadly...
Thank you Captain Obvious! :)
--
#include<humor.h>
Jacob Sherwood poi...@angband.org -- Bastardized quote from:
Information, information, everywhere Samuel Coleridge in
and not a thought to think. _Ancient Mariner_
Benjamin David Garrison
> Thank you Captain Obvious! :)
You're welcome. Always glad to help when I can. =)
--
Ben Garrison * gte941n@prism * ICQ#20300203 * IM ben628496 * www.ben.f2s.com
\ John 1:12 Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed
\ in His name, He gave the right to become children of God.
Akash Patel
History Month. Since Tech celebrated black history month, and now women's
awareness month, I'm wondering if there are gonna be any confederate history
month events.
sport death
Dukes of Hazzard marathon on TNN.
jjs - {psychic randsig}
--
#include<humor.h>
Jacob Sherwood poi...@angband.org -- Quoted from:
Sophisticated people people tip their waiter; Jeff Foxworthy
rednecks tip their cows.
Drew
I'm well aware of women, they just aren't that well aware of me....
Grant T. Michalski
:> WOMEN'S AWARENESS MONTH KICK-OFF EVENT!!!!
: I'm well aware of women, they just aren't that well aware of me....
Sure...first we give 'em a week, and now they take a month...
-G (Not really a chauvinist pig, just saw an opportunity for a joke)
--
Grant T. Michalski
- Senior - School of Chemical Engineering
- Georgia Institute of Technology
- gr...@angband.org
Rob
Stuffed Crust
> I would like to nominate May as Caucasian Male Awareness Month.
White Trash! w00t!
- Pizza
--
Solomon Peachy pi...@resnet.gatech.edu
I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent. +1(678)358-7968
Patience comes to those who wait. ICQ #1318344
...It's not "Beanbag Love", it's a "Transanimate Relationship"...
Robert Jameson
> Thank you Captain Obvious! :)
wait a minute, he took my line...
--
Robert Jameson
Jameson@cc
Impotence is nature's way of saying "no hard feelings"
Rob
Big Daddy wrote:
> Great! I've already talked about this some with others... I was
> actually gonna go for April, so we could still be in full session here.
April is already Confederate History Month.
*brainstorm*
What if we combined them?
geoff menegay
:April is already Confederate History Month.
Huh? Is that a joke?! <Web> No, apparently it isn't. That has to be the
dumbest thing ever.
Yeah, let's celebrate racism, slavery, greed, separating the country,
causing war, and breaking the Constitution. I swear, the South needs to
get *with* it.
KoNfUzEd
>Yeah, let's celebrate racism, slavery, greed, separating the country,
>causing war, and breaking the Constitution. I swear, the South needs to
>get *with* it.
someone should read up on history before spouting off a lot of common and
very simplistic views of what was going on. economic stranglehold from an
economy and system of work imposed on the south is a better description,
not to mention that several of the generals and ranking officers of the NORTH
had their own slaves. slavery and racism are a drastic simplification, and
I by no means agree with it, but the South had a lot more at stake than simply
that.
**MiChAeL
--
Michael Sheldon | Bill Gates is only a white persian
Georgia Tech OIT | cat and a monocle away from being
| the villain in a James Bond movie.
I speak for no one but myself | -- Dennis Miller
geoff menegay
:y...@havoc.gtf.org (geoff menegay) writes:
:>Yeah, let's celebrate racism, slavery, greed, separating the country,
:>causing war, and breaking the Constitution. I swear, the South needs to
:>get *with* it.
:
:someone should read up on history before spouting off a lot of common and
:very simplistic views of what was going on. economic stranglehold from an
:economy and system of work imposed on the south is a better description,
:not to mention that several of the generals and ranking officers of the NORTH
:had their own slaves. slavery and racism are a drastic simplification, and
:I by no means agree with it, but the South had a lot more at stake than simply
:that.
Oh, poor South, they were merely coping with an unfortunate situation. But
those dastardly Northerners had slaves for the *fun* of it!
Bullshit! The North certainly wasn't a bunch of saints, but the South
certainly wasn't justified in seceding and starting war. The Constitution
clearly forbids secession.
In any event, tell me what about the Confederacy deserves celebration?
geoff menegay
:: In any event, tell me what about the Confederacy deserves celebration?
:
:The South in and of itsself. :-)
I might accept that, but it's not "Southern History Month", it's
"Confederate History Month", and those mean very different things to me. I
don't think the Confederacy deserves celebration because it represents
division and war, but the South in general doesn't.
:I know you'll disagree with that. So, then, tell me what about Blacks
:(History Month) deserve celebration?
What doesn't? There's plenty that deserves celebration, just like there's
plenty for the South to celebrate, or the North or the West, or the state
of California, or for Asian Americans, or whatever. Using the term
"Confederacy" celebrates a specific time in history, namely one of war.
And I think that's stupid.
Michael Phillips
school.
Stuffed Crust wrote:
> Big Daddy <white.c...@iname.com> wrote:
> > Yet the Declaration of Independence says we have the right to overthrow
> > our government if it becomes.... too much.
>
> The DoI is not law. The Constituton is.
Akash Patel
>
> and get the damned stars and bars off your fscking flags. you lost the
> war, get over it.
as you said yourself your a northerner. I personnally have not decided on the
issue fo the state flag yet, but unless you live in GA, stay out of it. I know
you go to school here but if you don't like our flag stay out. Now if you wanna
become a perm resident here then you can put your input in. Thats what pissed
alot of people off about the emory protest last week. it was done by out of state
students. go protest your own flag and leave ours alone. if ga residents want
to protest thats one thing, but if out of state students want to protest, leave.
m
geoff menegay wrote:
> Big Daddy <white.c...@iname.com> wrote:
> :: In any event, tell me what about the Confederacy deserves celebration?
> :
> :The South in and of itsself. :-)
>
> I might accept that, but it's not "Southern History Month", it's
> "Confederate History Month", and those mean very different things to me. I
> don't think the Confederacy deserves celebration because it represents
> division and war, but the South in general doesn't.
naturally everybody (i hope) would agree that slavery was a very very
horrendous thing for the US and the CS to uphold. HOWEVER, the idea of
independence should be respected, wouldn't you say? the CS didn't create the
war out of thin air. to say that the CS represents war isn't correct. if the
CS represents war, then why doesn't the US?.
Akash Patel
> Yeah, let's celebrate racism, slavery
*legally* slavery lasted longer in the North (read the U.S.), the
emancipation proclamation outlawed slavery in teh South, not the North.
Sicne legally the south was still part of the country, slavery became
illegal. In the North however the slavery was still legal so who was
"backwards" longer?
Michael Phillips
Stuffed Crust wrote:
> Michael Phillips <gt5...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > yeah and statements like that tell us who the americans are and arent at this
> > school.
>
> Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and prove
> yourself one.
Michael Phillips
Stuffed Crust wrote:
> Michael Phillips <gt5...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > id rather be a fool than dipshit though
>
> But you manage to be both; how commendable!
Akash Patel
> time to lay off the crack big guy...the DoI is little more than a
> statement of principles, and has _no_ legal standing as law or anything
> remotely like it...
although not officially, i woudl say the DoI is looked upon just as the Federalist
papers are and precedence is.
Stuffed Crust
> Yet the Declaration of Independence says we have the right to overthrow
> our government if it becomes.... too much.
The DoI is not law. The Constituton is.
- Pizza
Kosmo
: Oh, poor South, they were merely coping with an unfortunate situation. But
go yankees!! (double meaning to that)
: In any event, tell me what about the Confederacy deserves celebration?
ummmm....nothing comes to mind offhand. but then, i'm a northern dolt who
doesn't know how truly marvy the south was in a time of oppression, greed,
slavery, etc....
and get the damned stars and bars off your fscking flags. you lost the
war, get over it.
--
If I ever lost both my eyes, I'd replace them with big olives. Then if
someone pissed me off, I could strain real hard and pop the pimentos at them.
That would teach them a lesson. --Gary McGuire
marvin
> yeah and statements like that tell us who the americans are and arent at this
> school.
time to lay off the crack big guy...the DoI is little more than a
statement of principles, and has _no_ legal standing as law or anything
remotely like it...
marvin
--
byron thibodeaux jr.
mar...@shaftnet.org CS Junior, Georgia Tech
Stuffed Crust
> yeah and statements like that tell us who the americans are and arent at this
> school.
Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and prove
yourself one.
- Pizza
Stuffed Crust
> id rather be a fool than dipshit though
But you manage to be both; how commendable!
- Pizza
marvin
> im the first to admit when im wrong. but i know im not
face it, you are completely wrong, and his statement is 100% correct. the
Declaration of Independance is little more than a statement of principles,
and is not law by any strech of the imagineation
marvin
> although not officially, i woudl say the DoI is looked upon just as the Federalist
> papers are and precedence is.
yeah...i thought about it a little and came to that conclusion...
still doesn't make solomon's statement incorrect ;) it isn't law.
Dariush Molavi
again:
you southerners really owe general sherman a debt of gratitude. while
burning the whole state was overkill, what he did for atlanta was keep it
from becoming a festering shithole like philadelphia (my hometown). he
forced atlanta to become 100 years younger than it's northern breathren. it
shows, too....it's cleaner, smaller (population-wise), newer, etc...a
generally more favorable place to live.
nb: i do not condone the burning of cities in the name of urban renewal (or
whatever you want to call it).
-dm
Akash Patel
the way you said it, its almost like saying, you black people should thank
slavery cuz it brought you to this country.
btw i did get it in email so you did hit the wrong button.
Stuffed Crust
> : The DoI is not law. The Constituton is.
> Very true. That notwithstanding, it brings up a very interesting
> point, no?
What, besides people assuming it's law? :)
The situation of this country has changed quite dtastically since the DoI
was penned. The Consttution was written with the principles of the DoI in
mind, and its writers did their best to ensure that the situtation which
propmpted the DoI could not arise. Which is why we have three branches
instead of a King or whatever. Checks and safeguards were engineered into
the system; first and foremost the People's involvement (though by and
large said people are simply too igormant to make informed decisions, but
that's a whole 'nother pet peeve..) with the formation and support of the
goverment.
d...@angband.org
> although not officially, i woudl say the DoI is looked upon just as the Federalist
> papers are and precedence is.
Especially that part about all men being endowed by their creator by
certain unalienable rights, huh? Guess that explains why it took 200 or so
years for Jim Crow laws to be abolished.
Dan
--
Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.
-- Dan Quayle
Mike Faff
> what he did for atlanta was keep it
> from becoming a festering shithole like philadelphia (my hometown). he
> forced atlanta to become 100 years younger than it's northern breathren. it
> shows, too....it's cleaner, smaller (population-wise), newer, etc...a
> generally more favorable place to live.
I'm also from philly, and I'll agree with the cleaner/newer/etc... I'm
not sure if I agree with your reasoning as to why...
Mike
Dariush Molavi
> not sure if I agree with your reasoning as to why...
imagine if someone firebombed philly (a la MOVE)....when they finally got
the place up and running again, i think that it'd be a hell of a lot nicer
than it was before (as long as they kept the grid pattern to the streets,
unlike some other cities i know....).
-dm <misses mayor rendell>
David Bostwick
}
}Bullshit! The North certainly wasn't a bunch of saints, but the South
}certainly wasn't justified in seceding and starting war. The Constitution
}clearly forbids secession.
}
If it was so clear, why did the Supreme Court have to rule on it several years
after the war?
nick TFM black
fix your line wrap
There is no explicit clause against secession in the Constitution.
I cite the proceedings of "Secession, State and Economy," a
conference held in 1995 to examine secession law in the United
States. I quote[0]:
"Since the end of the Civil War in 1865...there have been no
textual changes to the Consitution explicitly prohibiting
secession." Only amendments giving the federal system more
power over the states have been passed.
Secondly, there has been no court case deciding the issue,
either, although Lincoln's arguments concerning the legality
of the issue have been handed down, it is often forgotten that
he never argued them before a federal court. From the same
source, "there were no attempts by either side of the Civil War
to resort to federal courts...as settles as secession may be
as a political or historical issue to many...it has never
been settled as a legal one."
Note: I'm not arguing for or against anyone in this silly
argument, just getting the facts straight.
[0] http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html
--
nick black cs/math major [ a night without sleep is a morning
georgia institute of technology[ upon which you don't have to wake
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~dank[ up. --nick bronn
da...@math.gatech.edu 4o4.876.9143[
geoff menegay
:David Bostwick consulted the pineal gland and uttered:
:> In article <89mn5j$ivm$1...@havoc.gtf.org>, y...@havoc.gtf.org (geoff menegay) wrote:
:> }
:> }Bullshit! The North certainly wasn't a bunch of saints, but the South
:> }certainly wasn't justified in seceding and starting war. The Constitution
:> }clearly forbids secession.
:> }
:
:> If it was so clear, why did the Supreme Court have to rule on it several years
:> after the war?
:
:fix your line wrap
:There is no explicit clause against secession in the Constitution.
Bah!
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of
Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or
Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of
Nobility.
You're right, "secession" isn't found in the Constitution, but the
Confederacy certainly broke the Constitution on points that clearly ipmly
secession.
geoff menegay
:> I'm also from philly, and I'll agree with the cleaner/newer/etc... I'm
This argument is stupid. A newer city does not imply a cleaner, nicer
city. Do you want me to give you examples?
geoff menegay
:> I might accept that, but it's not "Southern History Month", it's
:> "Confederate History Month", and those mean very different things to me. I
:> don't think the Confederacy deserves celebration because it represents
:> division and war, but the South in general doesn't.
:
:naturally everybody (i hope) would agree that slavery was a very very
:horrendous thing for the US and the CS to uphold. HOWEVER, the idea of
:independence should be respected, wouldn't you say? the CS didn't create the
:war out of thin air. to say that the CS represents war isn't correct. if the
:CS represents war, then why doesn't the US?.
It does :) But the US is a winner, so it gets to write the propaganda in
their favor :)
What I believe you're trying to say though is that the Confederacy should
be celebrated because it represents independence - that's a valid point,
but for all practical purposes, we have something called "Independence Day"
(not the movie ;), which represents just that.
I can't say that independence by secession from the US would be looked
upon kindly these days anyway. What if California wanted to secede, or
Alaska, or even the South again? I'm sure it wouldn't be popular.
Why glorify a bad idea?
nick TFM black
> I can't say that independence by secession from the US would be looked
> upon kindly these days anyway. What if California wanted to secede, or
> Alaska, or even the South again? I'm sure it wouldn't be popular.
> Why glorify a bad idea?
If California wanted to secede, we would let them, out of fear terror,
and just ensure they were a quality trading partner. Not that
California would ever agree to secede, it being the most
politically divided state in the union. Actors would speak out
for, mentioning the action that would be similar to their latest
hit $150 million movie, while actresses would make impassioned
speaches against, with fiona apple writing a song about it that
reflected whatever maya angelou had to say. then, they'd all
head clandestine-like to chuck thomas[0]'s house to get some
of that down-home glaucoma cure.
[0]former head of mpp
--
nick black cs/math major [ God: Your status of deity has been
georgia institute of technology[ revoked due to gross incompetance.
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~dank[ Your check is in the mail. Please
da...@math.gatech.edu 4o4.876.9143[ do not use us for a reference. -PD
Benjamin David Garrison
> *legally* slavery lasted longer in the North (read the U.S.), the
> emancipation proclamation outlawed slavery in teh South, not the North.
> Sicne legally the south was still part of the country, slavery became
> illegal. In the North however the slavery was still legal so who was
> "backwards" longer?
That's a bunch of BS. Do you know how many northern states allowed slaves
then? 3. Kentucky, Arkansas...and one other one, I forget. The 'border
states'. These didn't want to seceede, but still had slaves. Had Lincoln
outlawed slavery in all states, the border states would have seceeded, and
the civil war would have been longer and bloodier.
I can't understand why southerners are so stuck on the premise that they
were right. The main reason they seceeded was slavery. (Don't give me
the states' rights crap. Slavery was the 'right' they were fighting
for). Don't give me the economic crap either. Yes, the south was poorer
than the north. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE FRICKING BACKWARDS! They weren't
industrialized. Their whole economic system was based on oppression of
one people for the 'good' of the others.
Stop listening to your great grandfather explain to you how history
worked, and think for yourself, moron.
btw, my favorite argument for why all history books place the blame
squarely on the south's shoulders is that "All of the textbook writers are
northerners, and don't see the other point of view"...don't you think that
something can be said about the intelligence of people who are
the-south-was-right freaks if none of them write text books?
Seriously...get over your freaking dead ancestors. Just because they were
dumb doesn't mean that you have to be.
--
Ben Garrison * gte941n@prism * ICQ#20300203 * IM ben628496 * www.ben.f2s.com
"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day'?" - Dobert
dan singhal
: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
: grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of
: Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
: Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or
: Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of
: Nobility.
: You're right, "secession" isn't found in the Constitution, but the
: Confederacy certainly broke the Constitution on points that clearly ipmly
: secession.
No, they didn't. All this says is "If you are a state, you shall not
do <blah>." with the implicit suggestion that, if you want to do <blah>
then you should not be a state. The Confederate States of America was
founded *after* individual states had left the United States of America.
Had they formed the Confederacy and seceded afterwards, it would have
been in violation of this ... section. And, although they undoubtedly
discussed it aforehand, they seceded before joining themselves. The
only reason that this section even becomes an issue, and the reason
that the war went through, is entirely based upon the fact that the
USA chose not to acknowledge the states articles of secession, b/c they
knew that, if they did, the independent states would join together
and be a seperate nation.
The war was fought, mostly, because the USA decided that a single country,
even in the aftermath of a war, would be more formidable and less prone
to outside attack than two, disagreeing, nations. So congress chose
not to acknowledge the articles of secession, forcing a war on the grounds
that the so-called CSA members had broken the mandates of the constitution.
History is written by the winners. The USA beat the CSA, so it became
a civil war and the CSA was in the wrong. Had the CSA won, it would have
been called a revolution. Had king george won, the so-called american
revolution would have been either a civil-war, or "the colonial disturbance."
--dan
-----
Never mess with magic,
never deal with dragons,
and never fall in love.
James Donavon Willard
> Akash Patel <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> *legally* slavery lasted longer in the North (read the U.S.), the
>> emancipation proclamation outlawed slavery in teh South, not the North.
>> Sicne legally the south was still part of the country, slavery became
>> illegal. In the North however the slavery was still legal so who was
>> "backwards" longer?
> That's a bunch of BS. Do you know how many northern states allowed slaves
> then? 3. Kentucky, Arkansas...and one other one, I forget. The 'border
> states'. These didn't want to seceede, but still had slaves. Had Lincoln
> outlawed slavery in all states, the border states would have seceeded, and
> the civil war would have been longer and bloodier.
> btw, my favorite argument for why all history books place the blame
> squarely on the south's shoulders is that "All of the textbook writers are
> northerners, and don't see the other point of view"...don't you think that
> something can be said about the intelligence of people who are
> the-south-was-right freaks if none of them write text books?
So, by that same token, most newspaper reporters are liberal because the
conservatives don't know how to write columns? Or all bosses know far more
than their employees because "they're the boss"? I have seen many cases
where the best person for the job simply isn't the one in charge. The
winner gets to write the history.
> Seriously...get over your freaking dead ancestors. Just because they were
> dumb doesn't mean that you have to be.
It's funny you should say that. I know Akash... his ancestors are from
India.
BTW, how did we get from Women's Awareness Month to this? We should go
back to talking about women...
--
.</-- James D. Willard, CCNA | AIM: JWillard99 -=- ICQ: 19940160 --\>.
`-ja...@whispering.org | "Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?"
`-j...@cc.gatech.edu -=- http://www.whispering.org
ei...@cc.gatech.edu
: Don't give me the economic crap either. Yes, the south was poorer
: than the north. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE FRICKING BACKWARDS! They weren't
: industrialized. Their whole economic system was based on oppression of
: one people for the 'good' of the others.
As was the North's. North and South had a British colonial economic
system in place - raw goods/agriculture in the south were brought to the
north where they were processed, value was added, and then resold in the
south. The north, as the place where the value was added, wins, much like
Britain won in such transaction with their colonies around the
world. "FRICKING BACKWARDS" is hardly an adequate explanation or a
sufficient argument.
Slavery became an issue with the issuing of the emancipation proclamation,
which was a weapon, not a political or values statement. If it was a
political or values statement, it would have applied to all slavery. One
is not able to make value statements such as "slavery is bad" apply only
to certain geographic areas, while it does not apply in other adjacent
geographic areas.
-David
--
David Eison (404) 892-6579 x 212 <http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~eison>
Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity
sport death
> in most cases...but I know many, many intelligent southerners who don't
> think that the south was in the right. Of course, making a blanket
> statement about a group of people while talking about the civil war is
> kind of ironic... but I've noticed that most people who call the civil war
> "the war of northern agression" only have half of their teeth in. ;-)
I don't think either side was really in the right. The issues that led
to the Civil War were issues that plagued the nation from the beginning.
Namely state's rights and the issue of how the slaves should be treated.
From the Southern point of view, the abolitionists were in violation of
the Constitution because they wanted to take away their property (the
slaves were considered property) without due process. Furthermore, the
South felt they were going to get majorly screwed by the newly elected
Republican President. They felt that the federal government had no
Constitutional right to regulate slavery (feeling that it was up to each
individual state to decide). This became especially crucial as the
country was expanding further and further west. Take also into account
that the South had become economically attached to agriculture. Some
industries did flourish in the South, but not very many. It was almost
as if the North was swept up in the Industrial Revolution while the
South was left behind. Slavery wasn't the only issue that divided the
nation at this time, though it was a big part of the bigger issues.
Slavery didn't even really officially become an issue until Lincoln
issue the Emancipation Proclamation freeing (IIRC) the Southern slaves.
This was more symbolic than anything else, further keeping England and
France out of the war.
This by no means should be taken as a defense of the South. Both sides
were right in their own points of view, and I think any real historian
would take into account the points of view of both the winners and the
losers.
I think if you really want to blame anyone for the Civil War, you blame
the forefathers who wrote the Constitution in the first place. But even
then, you can't hand them all of the blame. At that time, slavery was
dying a natural death and the South hadn't yet become dependent on crops
such as Cotton, so the forefathers figured that slavery would be come a
non-issue in a few generations. Secession became the last desperate act
of a group of states who felt that their federal government wasn't
listening to them. From what I've read, there's little that could have
been done to prevent the Civil War, except to speed up for slow down the
exact time when it would take place.
--
#include<humor.h>
Jacob Sherwood poi...@angband.org -- Quoted from:
Pardon me! I have nothing to say! George Carlin
Benjamin David Garrison
> where the best person for the job simply isn't the one in charge. The
> winner gets to write the history.
in most cases...but I know many, many intelligent southerners who don't
think that the south was in the right. Of course, making a blanket
statement about a group of people while talking about the civil war is
kind of ironic... but I've noticed that most people who call the civil war
"the war of northern agression" only have half of their teeth in. ;-)
The only person I know of who is adamant about this is David...enough
said. =)
...James...please don't tell me you're one of *them*.. ;-)
> It's funny you should say that. I know Akash... his ancestors are from
> India.
Um...yeah, well, I was thinking about that when I posted that. =) I was
mainly just replying to everyone else who posted, and his was the last
one on there.
> BTW, how did we get from Women's Awareness Month to this? We should go
> back to talking about women...
I'll toast to that! =) The civil war is a distressing subject for me,
because of my many 'discussions' with a friend of mine over it. (who,
after a very well thought-out point I made, he ended the discussion with
"Nothing you can say will change my mind." I think that's the mentality
of far too many southerners)
...of course, now that I think about it, the discussion of women is fairly
distressing too...
--
Ben Garrison * gte941n@prism * ICQ#20300203 * IM ben628496 * www.ben.f2s.com
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them.
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie.
Benjamin David Garrison
> As was the North's. North and South had a British colonial economic
> system in place - raw goods/agriculture in the south were brought to the
> north where they were processed, value was added, and then resold in the
> south. The north, as the place where the value was added, wins, much like
> Britain won in such transaction with their colonies around the
> world. "FRICKING BACKWARDS" is hardly an adequate explanation or a
> sufficient argument.
The main argument that I've heard is that it was because of high tairiffs
that the south seceeded... i.e. the high tariffs were what caused the
economic hardship of the south (which is what you wrote...because of high
teriffs, it was cheaper for southerners to buy from the north rather than
Britain) Southerners saw this as a northern desire to dominate the
south...but it was the prevailing economic theory at the time (Keep trade
in the country to strengthen it). If trade barriers would have been
lowered like the south wanted, we would have had a huge trade deficit.
> Slavery became an issue with the issuing of the emancipation proclamation,
> which was a weapon, not a political or values statement. If it was a
> political or values statement, it would have applied to all slavery. One
You're right. It was. I'm not disagreeing. I think it should have
applied to all states, but Lincoln didn't want to make the 3 other states
seceed. I'm not saying he was right...
> is not able to make value statements such as "slavery is bad" apply only
> to certain geographic areas, while it does not apply in other adjacent
> geographic areas.
Huh? The north did think slavery was bad everywhere. All "northern
states" didn't allow slavery at all. The so-called border states were
slave-holding southern states that didn't think the slavery issue
important enough to seceed.
Basically, here's my take on the whole thing. It was the biggest
embarrassment for the US that had happened up to that point, and maybe
even tops Korea and Vietnam. Glorifying any part of it just doesn't make
sense. Yes, the men who died in the war were fighting for what they
believed was right, and I'm not trying to discredit them...but lifting up
the military 'heroes' like Lee and Sherman (yes, either side) is just
strange. Also, let's not try to make it something it wasn't. There may
have been other causes for the war, but the dominant one by far was the
issue of slavery. Maybe the north didn't take the *best* position (in
fact, most, if not all northerners were racist. Lincoln thought that
whites were far superior to blacks), but it took the better one.
It was an ugly, ugly scar on american history, with both sides doing
things wrong (Sherman should have been tried as a war criminal)...why
glorify any part of it?
well, maybe that was more than my 2 cents worth... =)
--
Ben Garrison * gte941n@prism * ICQ#20300203 * IM ben628496 * www.ben.f2s.com
\ I Corinthians 10:31 Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all
\ to the glory of God.
Akash Patel
Big Daddy wrote:
> Texas (legally) can, I believe. (Maybe I'm talking out my ass... I thought
> I recall some random obscurity in their constitution; had to do with them
> being brought into the union previously a separate country, as opposed to
> the others colonies or territories)
i vaguely remember something similar, maybe it was from a movie or something,
but i doubt its real or they wouldnt have been forced to rejoin the union.
shana
news:38C02FD0...@prism.gatech.edu...
>
> lets talk about WAM, and since noone else has said it yet, I might as well
say
> it and get flamed so here it goes:
>
> I'd be more aware of women if they were naked, so how bout all women walk
around
> naked for the month of March ;)
>
> btw, its a joke so dont get your panties in a wad
>
WAM! BAM! THANK YOU MA'AM!!
(i'm surprised that i was the first to make this connection... :)
--
reason for joy # 406:
little packets of grape jelly you get in restaurants
geoff menegay
:I'd be more aware of women if they were naked, so how bout all women walk around
:naked for the month of March ;)
no wonder there's no men's awareness month, nobody wants to see *us* naked
;)
sport death
> That's a bunch of BS. Do you know how many northern states allowed slaves
> then? 3. Kentucky, Arkansas...and one other one, I forget. The 'border
> states'. These didn't want to seceede, but still had slaves.
Actually, I think it was 5. Kentucky, Missouri, W. Virginia, Delaware
and Maryland, though I can see why Delaware and Maryland would be
forgotten, since they really weren't border states per say, but they
are important considering their proximity to the capital.
> Had Lincoln outlawed slavery in all states, the border states would
> have seceded, and the civil war would have been longer and bloodier.
I don't think Lincoln had the Constitutional Power to outlaw slavery
because slaves were considered property and according the fifth
amendment, they couldn't be made free without due process. However,
with the Confederacy claiming to be out of the Union, Lincoln's position
changes dramatically. Notice he doesn't issue the Emancipation
Proclamation until after the Battle of Antietam. This was done as a
measure to prevent Britain and France from entering the war, especially
since Lee had come so close to Washington.
> I can't understand why southerners are so stuck on the premise that they
> were right. The main reason they seceeded was slavery. (Don't give me
> the states' rights crap. Slavery was the 'right' they were fighting
> for).
But it was a state's rights issue to the South. They felt that the
Constitution (and hence the federal government) had no bearing on
slavery (except for the 3/5's clause, IIRC).
> Don't give me the economic crap either. Yes, the south was poorer
> than the north. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE FRICKING BACKWARDS! They weren't
> industrialized. Their whole economic system was based on oppression of
> one people for the 'good' of the others.
But the economic issues were a part of the rift between the South and
North. To say it's just slavery is to take a rather simplistic view of
the entire war. Yes, slavery is an important issue to consider, and it
is entangled with the other issues of the war, but it's not the ONLY
issue.
> Stop listening to your great grandfather explain to you how history
> worked, and think for yourself, moron.
I personally have relatives who fought on both sides of the war, and I've
heard different views on it. Thinking for yourself doesn't mean that
you take a narrow and simplistic view of an issue. It means that you
have to look at both sides and look at both points of view of the issue.
> btw, my favorite argument for why all history books place the blame
> squarely on the � shoulders is that "All of the textbook writers are
> northerners, and don't see the other point of view"...don't you think that
> something can be said about the intelligence of people who are
> the-south-was-right freaks if none of them write text books?
Actually, almost all of the textbooks I've read have not placed the
blame squarely on the South's shoulders. Most of the textbooks I've
read have described the situation that led up the the War and described
different issues that caused the rift between the South and North.
--
#include<humor.h>
Jacob Sherwood poi...@angband.org -- Quoted from:
I'm sorry if i'm not very funny tonight, Lenny Bruce
But I'm not a comedian...I'm Lenny Bruce.
Rob
>
> BTW, how did we get from Women's Awareness Month to this? We should go
> back to talking about women...
Let's talk some more about TBS. eh?
Akash Patel
James Donavon Willard wrote:
> BTW, how did we get from Women's Awareness Month to this? We should go
> back to talking about women...
lets talk about WAM, and since noone else has said it yet, I might as well say
it and get flamed so here it goes:
I'd be more aware of women if they were naked, so how bout all women walk around
naked for the month of March ;)
btw, its a joke so dont get your panties in a wad
Nathan Greer
> WAM! BAM! THANK YOU MA'AM!!
> (i'm surprised that i was the first to make this connection... :)
you weren't the first.
Lady Galadriel
) I'd be more aware of women if they were naked
Tech guys could not possibly be more aware of women than they already
are. I decline.
-gzb
--
Never been much of a doubting Thomas
but nothing breaks like a broken promise
-dream theater
l...@cc.gatech.edu
> Michael Phillips <gt5...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > im the first to admit when im wrong. but i know im not
>
> face it, you are completely wrong, and his statement is 100% correct. the
> Declaration of Independance is little more than a statement of principles,
> and is not law by any strech of the imagineation
He said "right", not "law", actually. The DoI does actually argue
about rights. Granted it doesn't *establish* rights, because no piece
of text does, but it does argue eloquently that people can and should
overthrow the government... when it gets to be too much.
Lex