cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-12-22 - Re: Ebonics

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: Carl Johnson <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Message Hash: 1fb1bd2318772b0ab12d2eed937893a965934786b0c43dc1a8313e682ed82c11
Message ID: <32BD7C90.48D2@gte.net>
Reply To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961221144523.595B-100000@gak.voicenet.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-22 18:24:33 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 10:24:33 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 10:24:33 -0800 (PST)
To: Carl Johnson <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Ebonics
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961221144523.595B-100000@gak.voicenet.com>
Message-ID: <32BD7C90.48D2@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Carl Johnson wrote:
> > Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> wrote:
> > the War For Southern Independence (not a true Civil War BTW)

>   Care to enlighten an unknowing Canuck as to why this is so?

Pardon me for adding to list, but everyone really wants to know, yes?

A true Civil War is two factions fighting for control of the same
government or taxable land area.  One could argue that the North and
South were both fighting for control of the South, but that would be
a specious argument.  If the South had intended in their declarations
of separation to free up the Northern states as well, then that would
add weight to the argument.

BTW, the fact that there were incursions into the North by the South
is no more evidence of Civil War than Chechens incursing into Moscow.

Also, the "provocation" at Ft. Sumter should no more be considered the
South starting the war than, say, the Gulf of Tonkin incident starting
the Vietnam war.

Thread