From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: What the FAQ?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:22:57 GMT

KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>The above was intended to be humorous, but there was some conviction behind it.
>As I understand it, the purpose of a FAQ (FAQ == Frequently Asked Question) is
>to establish a certain base of factual information and terminology, so that as
>new readers subscribe to the group they can come up to speed quickly without
>filling the net with repetitions of the same old questions (or the same old
>mistakes) again and again. When someone posts a discussion mentioning the
>"Stars and Bars" it would be helpful to know whether the writer is referring to
>the flag that was historically called the "Stars and Bars" or in fact to the
>"Confederate Navy Jack" (which is frequently called the "Stars and Bars"). 

I couldn't agree more with the above. However, the choice of FAQ information is
ideologically motivated. People with a reluctance to to discuss slavery and
white racial warfare against Africans will prefer to fill the FAQ with lots
of cute stuff about flag colours, no doubt.

>Jones, keep in mind that you yourself said (in response to a post by Trevor)
>that the 1860 US Flag was every bit as much a symbol of racism, slavery, etc as
>was the original national flag of the CSA, i.e. the Stars and Bars. On the

I did *not*. The ideals of the USA were not nearly as explicitly racist as 
those of the CSA. The USA at least was ashamed enough of it's racism to keep it
somewhat under the table. The CSA had no such reservations.

>I therefore feel that if we are to discuss these subjects with minimal
>misinterpretation, it will be helpful to have precise definitions for the 
>terms we use. I cannot think of another ambiguity that has occurred as
>frequently on this group since it started as has confusion over the phrase
>"Stars and Bars". Once again I say, "I nominate the names of the CSA flags as
>the first entry for the FAQ."

And, once again, I say "FAQ that shit, but near the end". There's a lot more
core information about the white Civil War than flag colours. Or else we could
start the FAQ out with R.E. Lee's favourite underwear brands, or something as 
important as that.

>You state, "It says so much about the person making that remark." I am no good
>at reading between the lines. What do you think it DOES say? 

That you're basically a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler who must be killed 
forthwith. Well, what the FAQ do you think it says that you're willing to 
ignore a tremendous Holocaust in which tens of millions died horrible deaths
so you can dwell on flag colours???

>I agree (and have so stated) that most of the white people involved in the
>Civil War (on both sides) held racist beliefs. However, the vast majority of
>the fighting of the Civil War involved armies of Southern white men against
>armies of (mostly) white Northern men, governed by white men on both sides. 

That's just plain bull. The vast majority of the fighting in the Civil War
was the deadly struggle of whites, Northern and Southern, to keep Africans
in check. Union generals had to be directly ordered to stop returning AFricans
to their "owners". There were murderous riots in many northern cities as whites
attacked blacks, angry at being forced to fight against slavery.

The war between blacks and whites has been a rather lopsided one, to say the
least, but it has been quite real to its unfortunate victims, and quite
profitable to the victors.

>While the beginnings of the dispute between these two white-male-dominated
>groups may have involved racist laws and beliefs, and the evolution in Northern
>policy toward race made important contributions toward ending the Civil War, it
>is obvious that one cannot understand the Civil War through an inquiry that
>"begins and ends" with racism. The argument that the white members of the CSA
>army were where so racist and greedy toward black people that they shot
>hundreds of thousands of white people from the North and died themselves in the
>hundreds of thousand is so narrow as to be facetious.

You are so blind. Your last sentence is an adamant refusal to accept something
that would be obvious to a 10-year old. The white members of the CSA were
fighting to remain aristocrats, and you simply cannot come to terms with that.

>I have often found it beneficial to alt.war.civil.american to have your input
>on the American Civil War fought between the CSA and the USA in 1861-1865.
>However, if the primary subject you wish to discuss is a racist "civil war", 
>and you feel the "Civil War" [again I am being precise about capitalization] 
>is only side show to this, then you have chosen the wrong venue to express your
>opinions.

You think a minor and limited conflict between whites is far more important than
a massive and bloody campaign against AFricans. What more can I say? I rest
my case.

Why is it that the *White* Civil War qualifies as "American", as opposed to a 
far greater war which is a much larger component of American history?

>Now, my second nomination for the FAQ is a description of how to enter into a
>KILL file the name of an author who ignores the charter.

KILL away, white man. The truth lives on.
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa