Debates
29 May 10
30 May 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI wouldn't say it, if I didn't know that to be said by Southerners.
Some were.
AW: As far as I'm aware the South wanted to leave the Union due to [b]economic exploitation.[/b]
Notice my choice of words: "As far as I'm aware the South wanted to leave the Union due to economic exploitation."
English isn't my first language but doesn't that convey the idea that I'm referring to what someone else said?
30 May 10
Originally posted by adam warlockIt conveys the message that you have formed a personal opinion, not that you are merely parroting someone else's. If you wanted to say you were just repeating something someone else said, the following sentence would have been better:
I wouldn't say it, if I didn't know that to be said by Southerners.
Notice my choice of words: "As far as [b]I'm aware the South wanted to leave the Union due to economic exploitation."
English isn't my first language but doesn't that convey the idea that I'm referring to what someone else said?[/b]
Some say that the reason the Southern States attempted to leave the Union was because of economic exploitation by the North.
30 May 10
Originally posted by no1marauderBut what made me form my personal opinion? What I've read that the Southerners said. And normally I don't just parrot what other people say. But this isn't important.
It conveys the message that you have formed a personal opinion, not that you are merely parroting someone else's. If you wanted to say you were just repeating something someone else said, the following sentence would have been better:
Some say that the reason the Southern States attempted to leave the Union was because of economic exploitation by the North.
And do you agree that there was economic exploitation by the North?
30 May 10
OK, my analogy between the USA and Angola was poor: the South tried to secede from the USA, so the USA remained the USA throughout the Civil War; Angola, on the other hand, was not Angola to begin with, and did not become Angola until elections were held in 1992. Therefore the US Civil War has no relevance to this thread; you can all stop talking about it.
ATY, your Cabinda thesis holds no water. It's very difficult for me to understand why you are clinging to it. Part of my comprehension problem is that you seem oblivious to the fact that the MPLA and Unita, who did sign the accord, soon fell out and started fighting each other. The 'government of Angola' did not exist except, perhaps, on paper.
I'm running out of ways in which to make this basic point.
30 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAs an Angolan I'd (somewhat) contest to this assertion. Sadly my best "argument" to contest it is some sort of a pathetic excuse for nationalism.
on the other hand, was not Angola to begin with, and did not become Angola until elections were held in 1992.
Continuing your argument further one could also say that Angola wasn't Angola until 2002. This wouldn't be very far off the reality of the country.
Thanks for making me realize this. 🙂
30 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagethe Confederacy didn't claim the Northern states.
Nope. The British Empire just got smaller; it's unified government did not change at any stage. In the Civil War, there were two separate governments, two presidents. Just as there were once two Popes, with two separate Papacies!
Civil war is like schizophrenia, or in the case of Angola, multiple personality disorder.
both the Confederacy and the Union claimed the Southern states.
the Union maintained the continuity of the United States.
30 May 10
Originally posted by adam warlockNo, I don't.
But what made me form my personal opinion? What I've read that the Southerners said. And normally I don't just parrot what other people say. But this isn't important.
And do you agree that there was economic exploitation by the North?
Nor do I believe that the claim that secession was based on anything but slavery. Southern apologists are very anxious to re-write history as it doesn't look good that their ancestors tried to destroy the Union based on their desire to maintain and spread slavery. But the actual reasons given by the seceding States are a matter of public record and they belie the "economic exploitation" claim.
30 May 10
Originally posted by no1marauderOk. But the economic exploitation claims are also in the public record. I'm not claiming that economic is the crux of the matter, but from what I know it certainly played a part.
No, I don't.
Nor do I believe that the claim that secession was based on anything but slavery. Southern apologists are very anxious to re-write history as it doesn't look good that their ancestors tried to destroy the Union based on their desire to maintain and spread slavery. But the actual reasons given by the seceding States are a matter of public record and they belie the "economic exploitation" claim.
Back to the Angolan Civil War.
30 May 10
Originally posted by no1marauderthe last time i read the "it wasn't about slavery" point was in my kid's D&K book on the Civil War (the first time was in Social Studies class in Texas, late elementary or junior high, i think).
No, I don't.
Nor do I believe that the claim that secession was based on anything but slavery. Southern apologists are very anxious to re-write history as it doesn't look good that their ancestors tried to destroy the Union based on their desire to maintain and spread slavery. But the actual reasons given by the seceding States are a matter of public record and they belie the "economic exploitation" claim.
D&K is a European publisher that makes books with a lot of nice photographs, supported mostly by captions and chapter intros.
i'll look it up the text and post it.
30 May 10
Originally posted by adam warlockI'm speaking figuratively, to a degree. (Of course Angola existed. Wasn't it on the map?) But the question of legitimacy is more interesting than I realised. Obviously the assumption here is that legitimacy is bestowed by democratic process.
As an Angolan I'd (somewhat) contest to this assertion. Sadly my best "argument" to contest it is some sort of a pathetic excuse for nationalism.
Continuing your argument further one could also say that Angola wasn't Angola until 2002. This wouldn't be very far off the reality of the country.
Thanks for making me realize this. 🙂
I'd apply the same argument to South Africa: it didn't have a legitimate government until 1994: just a patchwork of competing interests. (But maybe that's all a country ever is in any case.)
30 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI disagree with the assertion that Angola didn't exist until 1992. Obviously there were factions fighting for control of the country, but it had an internationally recognized territory from at least 1975. Therefore, the country of Angola existed.
OK, my analogy between the USA and Angola was poor: the South tried to secede from the USA, so the USA remained the USA throughout the Civil War; Angola, on the other hand, was not Angola to begin with, and did not become Angola until elections were held in 1992. Therefore the US Civil War has no relevance to this thread; you can all stop talking about ...[text shortened]... ist except, perhaps, on paper.
I'm running out of ways in which to make this basic point.
30 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI understood that you were talking figuratively. Of course there was a recognized country with established borders that went by the name of Angola. And if you were in Angola at the time you'd hear every Angolan to say that they were Angolan, but there were disparate notions of what was Angola and legitimacy couldn't be given to any of the major faction.
I'm speaking figuratively, to a degree. (Of course Angola existed. Wasn't it on the map?) But the question of legitimacy is more interesting than I realised. Obviously the assumption here is that legitimacy is bestowed by democratic process.
I'd apply the same argument to South Africa: it didn't have a legitimate government until 1994: just a patchwork of competing interests. (But maybe that's all a country ever is in any case.)
The Cabinda question actually is a very interesting and problematic one, but of course ATY is making a big mess out of it.
Edit:
a patchwork of competing interests. (But maybe that's all a country ever is in any case.)
I'd say this is quite right.
30 May 10
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, you could point it out on the map. A country without a government from 'independence' until 1992 or 2002, depending how you look at it. Except those two months in 1975 before the FNLA, MPLA and UNITA started fighting each other. I guess that's what the 'Angola' in the OP refers to. But this ground has already been covered.
I disagree with the assertion that Angola didn't exist until 1992. Obviously there were factions fighting for control of the country, but it had an internationally recognized territory from at least 1975. Therefore, the country of Angola existed.
Democracy is still not particularly healthy in Angola.