It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: seagull
Because we know if we ignore the lessons of history, we won't repeat 'em.
originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I don't want them to self-censor. I want anything having to do with being PC to stay out of video gaming. While I said I don't care about the .99 cent money grubbing apps, I do care about what happened to those games and the developers.
That poem can be applied to this situation. Even if they are exploitive games with IAPs, they are still games. People should be all over Apple for pulling the games because of a flag. If people don't apply heat, things will become more censored due to the sheer apathy of the censorship of the games that came before.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I don't care about what kind of game it is. I don't care whether or not they have the right to sell it or not as a free marketer.
Neither or those are the direct issue.
The real issue is that the reason, the ONLY reason, Apple has decided to stop selling the games in question is because of bowing to PC sentiment. It's not like they were marketing a racist game. It was a Civil War game.
It's a stupid as the company who made the zombie game and pulled it because of accusations of racism over the black zombies. Well, the game was set in Africa. What color were the zombies likely to be?!
originally posted by: Xcathdra
The civil war was fought over states rights, NOT slavery.
If we continue to ignore our history, and now apparently actively hide it, we are doomed to repeat it.
Couldn't the same argument be made about any flag?
Myth #1: The Civil War wasn't about slavery.
The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).
"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"
In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New Yorkeven the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.
In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.
"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.
"[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."
Myth #2: The Union went to war to end slavery.
Sometimes, Loewen said, the North is mythologized as going to war to free the slaves. That's more bad history, Loewen said: "The North went to war to hold the union together."
Pres. Abraham Lincoln was personally against slavery, but in his first inaugural, he made it clear that placating the Southern states was more important. Quoting himself in other speeches, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." [Read: The Best Inaugural Addresses Ever]
Abolitionism grew in the Union army as soldiers saw slaves flocking to them for freedom, contradicting myths that slavery was the appropriate position for African-Americans, Loewen said. But it wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 — which left slavery intact in border states that hadn't seceded — that ending Confederate slavery became an official Union aim.