The Big Picture: Junk Drawer Rises

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

BLASPHEMY!!!
There can never be enough of multimillionaire in tight suit of giant bat...
Ok, maybe you got the point.
Hurray for multimillionaire in red&yellow high-tech power armor :D

Movie Bob is trying so hard to hate The Dark knight rises for some reason, he always seems to take a swipe at it whenever possible. I could say the same thing about super Mario, is it not been enough by now? Or how about side scrollers in general. Bob does have a point about Cod vs Mario though.

As for Brave IGN was really not all that impressed with it saying it was just another princess story all about girl power, which is another thing that has been beaten to death. However that is just their view point, I will be interested how Movie bob feels about the film once he has been able view it.


First we had action movies with the strong men that were done to death but I think the girl power movies are on the right track to also being overplayed.

Nate Corran:
I am a great lover of Batman, but I do feel he gets WAY over used (and over crapped) because he is the ONLY FUCKING DC character who is both interesting and not a Red and Blue flying deus ex machina. So I agree with that point to an extent.
Also, much appreciation for the Mario vs. Call of Duty thing. I have had WAY too many arguments about that.

Really? Batman's getting so overplayed he is becoming one of the worst cases of Deus Ex Machina around. Superman has been beaten a hell of a lot more times than Batman. Batman always wins because "He's just that good." Even if it defies any form of reason, you can't claim a character is great because "He's just a regular guy" if he can square off with people who can move quicker than he can think and play volleyball with planets and not get turned into a bat cowl draped over a pile of porridge faster than you can say Mary Sue. I've always said either admit Batman has superpowers (they might insist he doesn't but no normal guy is taking a punch from a pissed off Superman and not getting turned inside out) or keep him in his own separate continuity.

Also people need to stop with this "Superman is overpowered" stuff. It's tired and not even remotely true. Sure you put him up against a mugger he's overpowered, put him up against an actual Superman villain (Darkseid, Doomsday, Brainiac or Bizarro) and he usually needs some help. Or put him against any magic user, any of the Lanterns or any other Kryptonians. Superman is always having big epic fights against guys in or above his weight class but people always act like he's doing the same job as Batman.

Haven't heard of Wreck-It-Ralph, however since the overriding sense I'm getting is that unless you can identify every single cameo character in the movie, this movie isn't for you... I'm not going to bother with it...

What I'm more concerned about with the Wreck-It Ralph trailer is how the game the title character is in glosses over the concept of imminent domain, and then does jack-squat with it!

I know this is supposed to be a kid's movie, but with all the video game references in it, how many 6-12 year old's are really going to get it? Also, Fix-It Felix is a clear reference to Bob the Builder. So, is Disney trying to say that Felix is the stooge of the real villain, since he's the one propping up the system?

Or am I just reading too much into all this?

But seriously, the imminent domain thing has me really grinding my gears. I hope it gets addressed in the movie.

Corran006:
Movie Bob is trying so hard to hate The Dark knight rises for some reason, he always seems to take a swipe at it whenever possible.

I think he's trying to stop himself from fanboying over DKR. TV Tropes calls it Hype Backlash. It's just to prevent him from thinking its the Second Coming then be upset when it isn't.

The end reminded me how much I want a deadpool movie.

I liked the scene in Brave trailer where her dress bursts.
It parodies how impractical female wear is.
It's a metaphor for what she is going. She was a generic girl as a caterpillar and burst into what she is as a butterfly in front of everyone to prove her worth. I can't spell the various terms for the in between stage.

Pixar + Pretty + Looks to be tackling gender equality smartly = going to be a good Film.

But in the new CoD they ADDED A FRELLING 2 TO THE COVER!
omg INVATORS!!!!

But, seriously?
Yeah...can't say I'm really disagreeing with you on any of these parts.

Except, maybe, I wish they chose another black guy for that movie.
I just can't take him seriously anymore.

Tanis:
But in the new CoD they ADDED A FRELLING 2 TO THE COVER!
omg INVATORS!!!!

But, seriously?
Yeah...can't say I'm really disagreeing with you on any of these parts.

Except, maybe, I wish they chose another black guy for that movie.
I just can't take him seriously anymore.

I don't even like Call of Duty but if adding powerups to a game counts as innovation then so does the inclusion of throwing knives, new perks and new kill streak bonuses.

I didn't realize Wreck-It Ralph was a movie. I thought it was some Donkey Kong esque indie game <.< Needless to say I am now excited about a Disney movie for first time since I was eight.

Bigwig:
Up until Galaxy each new Mario game was different enough from the last for the series to remain fresh. But look at the series now: New Super Mario Bros, New Super Mario Bros 2, New Super Mario Bros Wii, New Super Mario Bros Wii U...all these games look, sound, and play essentially the same. Why should Mario get a free pass to stagnate just because it innovated in the past? There have been 5 modern CoD games, and with 4 NSMBs Mario is quickly catching up.

It just seems like a double standard. Just as people are willing to play the same CoD game every year there are people willing to play the same Mario game every year. Neither series is bad by any stretch, they're all very well made games, but they're also cash cows for their respective publishers who treat them as such.

Agree so much with this. I personally love getting my annual sports game fix (pes or fifa, though I didn't actually buy one this year) and while it fair to say they are pretty samey it is unfair to say they don't innovate at all and screw it I like sports and I like games, so putting the two together is okay in my book. The same can be said for COD though I hate to admit it. Recent Mario games have begun innovate less and blend into each other but they will get a free pass on it because it is Nintendo and for some reason swapping out old power ups for new ones is more innovative that updated rosters and new guns in Nintendo fan logic.

If Deathstroke the Terminator is in that crappy-looking 'Arrow' show I will have to watch it regardless. That is pretty much the only DC character I genuinely and unabashedly like.

Sis:
Haven't we reached the point where maybe, just maybe, we've seen enough Mario for a while?

While I do agree with the points Bob made ... The choice of words on that Batman point was off. First arguing about "innovation" and different-features-of-multiple-incarnations-of-X being better than multiple-incarnations-of-X then going on to broadly claim there was "too much Batman" recently ... Well, it does sound contradictory.
I do kinda get the drift of Batman being overused and oversaturated, while Mario feels "fresh" every time ... But ... yeh, as I said: Poor choice of words.

So when you made your Mario argument, I couldn't help but stand up and clap. So when I see a gamer bash Mario for not making that many changes, but has pretty much pumped out one fun game after another and changed platforming as we know it, I ignore them. Then when you say he needs to go away, I say when he stops being fun is when he can retire, until then, letsa go motherfucker.

When zombies die, then all the batman stuff can die too.

RaikuFA:

Frostbite3789:

Sis:
Haven't we reached the point where maybe, just maybe, we've seen enough Mario for a while?

Pretty much this.

And as a fan of the EA Sports NHL franchise, I think it's asinine to talk about how much Mario has innovated and then say those games haven't innovated at all. It just comes off as super pretentious.

"Yeah. I grew up with the NES. My franchise of choice is better than YOUR franchise of choice."

I grew up with an NES too. I'm just not a pretentious ass about it.

Lets see though...

Me: I like platformers, RPGs and beat em ups.

People who only play sports titles/CoD and only those: NOOOOOO THOSE ARE NOT REAL GAMES, YOU HAVE TO PLAY CoD!!!

Me: But CoD isn't for me, I do like other FPS like Serious Sam, Resistance and the like.

Nincompoop: YOU DON'T DESERVE TO PLAY GAMES!!! ONLY MY GAMES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE MADE!!!

Don't happen all the time, but its annoying. Plus saying CoD isn't your cup of tea yet you like Mario gets you some vile hate mail, even on here.

You realize that is the same attitude Mobiebob is endorsing here, right?

Just reverse the names, and you will notice a pattern on his speech that says "COD does not innovate, Madden does not innovate. Mario is a true innovation force in this industry!" Not saying that Mario games are bad games, and I don't even like COD or sports games; but to judge them on a different light just because "its Mario" is typical fanboy pattern.

In fact, Mario innovates just as little. All the people that complains about COD relegating innovation to "new perks and weapons" need to be more critical to a game that introduces a new blue flower that shoots ice, instead of a red one that shoots fire. Is that what passes for innovation now? How about a green one that shoots acid and a brown one that shoots rocks. Maybe that is enough to justify an entire new game.

i...can't..wait for Brave!
but here's the thing. and, it's possible i've got this all wrong, but i have an idea of what the moral of the story will end up being.
the movie is about merida, the scottish princess who's fed up with having no control over her life, and kinda snaps when her parents use her as a political bargaining chip, in the scene bob showed us. the ads seem to show that there's especially a lot of friction between her and her mother (makes sense, this is the first pixar movie arguably aimed at girls, sort of, with the female lead, so that's an issue a lot of girls could relate to)
problem is (and again, this is all presumption on my part) i'm going to be extremely pissed off it all comes down to a comprimise. in her bid for freedome, merida ends up cursing her family and has and setting off a political outrage against them (such as by breaking the law in refusing the hand of the winner of the archery contest) and she has to go and fix it. that's all good, but knowing how these movies tend to work, i get the feeling that her quest to live her life the way she wants will be portrayed as more than a little arogant, and that her mother will end up using the "your father and i only want what's best for you" line as a magical shield from any accusations of wrong doing.
it'll be a comprimise, the mother will learn to back off a bit out of her daughter's life too, but my point is, it should be a comprimise. merida doean't need to be taught humility, she's done nothing wrong! yeah, the getting her family cursed thing wasn't a good idea, but that wasn't a direct result of her wanting to live freely.
it doesn't matter if she cause a huge kicking and screaming among the scottish tribes, she did it by defying a very stupid and unfair law that she had every reason to break! she didn't ask to betrothed!
but... wow, that wasn't meant to go on for so long. and once more, that might not turn out to be the case, in which case i'll look pretty stupid here. but yeah, if they end up settling for merida AND her mother learning a lesson, her mother than as a parent she needs to back off a bit, and merida that "oh i'm sorry, i understand now, i'll marry the boy i've never met and live a life i don't want, if it's for you mummy!" i'm going to be dissapointed...
but look at that resolution and tell me that wouldn't just be typical.

RaikuFA:

Corran006:
Movie Bob is trying so hard to hate The Dark knight rises for some reason, he always seems to take a swipe at it whenever possible.

I think he's trying to stop himself from fanboying over DKR. TV Tropes calls it Hype Backlash. It's just to prevent him from thinking its the Second Coming then be upset when it isn't.

Where you been? Bob's a Marvel man. That's why he creamed himself over every single Marvel movie leading to the Avengers.

movie bob's argument: mario was revolutionary once, therefore the franchise is impervious to criticism.

RaikuFA:

MB202:
The thing with the Mario side-scrollers and all the "mainstream" Mario games are all pretty much made in-house by Nintendo EAD, Nintendo EAD Tokyo, etc., while the Mario spin-offs are made by different divisions of Nintendo or by straight-up third party developers. Is it really that much of a stretch to ask Nintendo maybe, just made, to add a bit more variety to their own games that they, themselves, make? Like another Super Mario Bros. 2-style game? That would be sweet...

Also, who's the Beholder?

Dungeons and Dragons

Thanks

TJC:

I guess with SMB2 style you mean more playabe characters?
But then, we can see the ill-fated road the Sonic franchise has taken with completely asinine and unlikable character that got their own major playmodes in games and we saw how THAT turned out. Frankly, seeing how Waluigi hasn't still be euthanized, I'm happy that Nintendo is focusing their core Mario games on just Luigi and the other one.

Um, no, by "Super Mario Bros. 2 style", I meant the actual GAMEPLAY style of throwing stuff. THAT was fun!

Bob you are wrong in one point! CoD did not inovate in going Modern Warfare. Battlefield did it before.

MB202:

RaikuFA:

MB202:
The thing with the Mario side-scrollers and all the "mainstream" Mario games are all pretty much made in-house by Nintendo EAD, Nintendo EAD Tokyo, etc., while the Mario spin-offs are made by different divisions of Nintendo or by straight-up third party developers. Is it really that much of a stretch to ask Nintendo maybe, just made, to add a bit more variety to their own games that they, themselves, make? Like another Super Mario Bros. 2-style game? That would be sweet...

Also, who's the Beholder?

Dungeons and Dragons

Thanks

TJC:

I guess with SMB2 style you mean more playabe characters?
But then, we can see the ill-fated road the Sonic franchise has taken with completely asinine and unlikable character that got their own major playmodes in games and we saw how THAT turned out. Frankly, seeing how Waluigi hasn't still be euthanized, I'm happy that Nintendo is focusing their core Mario games on just Luigi and the other one.

Um, no, by "Super Mario Bros. 2 style", I meant the actual GAMEPLAY style of throwing stuff. THAT was fun!

Aside from the original SMB 1 and 2 (aka lost levels) and Super Mario Land... where is he NOT throwing stuff?
Just kidding, I get what you mean. Something that makes it feel fresh again. I was horribly disappointed from NSMB for the DS back then. No challenge and the Wall jump didn't make the levels as sprawly and exploration-worthy as expected :C

Will check this one out but I doubt I'll actually buy it.

hermes200:

RaikuFA:

Frostbite3789:
Pretty much this.

And as a fan of the EA Sports NHL franchise, I think it's asinine to talk about how much Mario has innovated and then say those games haven't innovated at all. It just comes off as super pretentious.

"Yeah. I grew up with the NES. My franchise of choice is better than YOUR franchise of choice."

I grew up with an NES too. I'm just not a pretentious ass about it.

Lets see though...

Me: I like platformers, RPGs and beat em ups.

People who only play sports titles/CoD and only those: NOOOOOO THOSE ARE NOT REAL GAMES, YOU HAVE TO PLAY CoD!!!

Me: But CoD isn't for me, I do like other FPS like Serious Sam, Resistance and the like.

Nincompoop: YOU DON'T DESERVE TO PLAY GAMES!!! ONLY MY GAMES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE MADE!!!

Don't happen all the time, but its annoying. Plus saying CoD isn't your cup of tea yet you like Mario gets you some vile hate mail, even on here.

You realize that is the same attitude Mobiebob is endorsing here, right?

Just reverse the names, and you will notice a pattern on his speech that says "COD does not innovate, Madden does not innovate. Mario is a true innovation force in this industry!" Not saying that Mario games are bad games, and I don't even like COD or sports games; but to judge them on a diffeIrent light just because "its Mario" is typical fanboy pattern.

In fact, Mario innovates just as little. All the people that complains about COD relegating innovation to "new perks and weapons" need to be more critical to a game that introduces a new blue flower that shoots ice, instead of a red one that shoots fire. Is that what passes for innovation now? How about a green one that shoots acid and a brown one that shoots rocks. Maybe that is enough to justify an entire new game.

Did you see his twitter and blog posts? He just said he was happy about them and people said he has no right playing games since its Mario. I really don't blame him or anyone lashing out at CoD or Madden fans because the CoD or Madden fans are throwing a tantrum over what is esensally "Stop liking what I don't like." Plus both sides are the pot calling the kettle black over innovation. Just play your games and stop attacking each other over this stuff.

Man, Bob puts so much work into these videos....

Too bad I don't give a shit about his opinion since he told me that I'm an entitled little shit because I'm actually saying "Hey, if you don't fix this, I'm going to take my money elsewhere." Like you can do in a capitalist society.

Though I will say that I am looking forwards to Wreck-it Ralph.

Sis:
Haven't we reached the point where maybe, just maybe, we've seen enough Mario for a while?

NO! THERE CAN NEVER BE ENOUGH MARIO!!!!!!!! Or Tanooki for that matter.

I'm with Bob in this one, and it's something I noticed for a long while, people whine and complain about "having too much Mario" while we keep seeing annual releases of Madden (or Fifa if you live in Mexico or the UK) and Call of Duty without any single innovation and they still sell like crazy (read: millions), while Mario is probably the only videogame property to have as many awesome games in as many genres possible, with the possible exception of a first person shooter (if you exclude Yoshi's Safari for the SNES).

"Wreck-It Ralph looks awesome"

You don't say?

The Gentleman:
Brave: Standard Pixar fare based on a stock plot ("tomboyish girl to be wed attempts to show her independence by being as good as a man... blah, blah, blah..."), my hopes are high. Also, any sign of a villain in this one?

Would it be cool if there was no concrete villain, but the villain would be life itself (and the problems that come with it)?

SupahGamuh:

Sis:
Haven't we reached the point where maybe, just maybe, we've seen enough Mario for a while?

NO! THERE CAN NEVER BE ENOUGH MARIO!!!!!!!! Or Tanooki for that matter.

I'm with Bob in this one, and it's something I noticed for a long while, people whine and complain about "having too much Mario" while we keep seeing annual releases of Madden (or Fifa if you live in Mexico or the UK) and Call of Duty without any single innovation and they still sell like crazy (read: millions), while Mario is probably the only videogame property to have as many awesome games in as many genres possible, with the possible exception of a first person shooter (if you exclude Yoshi's Safari for the SNES).

Its not just that, its the double standard with it. You're allowed to bash someone for liking Mario yet when you bash someone for liking CoD.

RaikuFA:
Its not just that, its the double standard with it. You're allowed to bash someone for liking Mario yet when you bash someone for liking CoD.

Maybe I did. Don't get me wrong, I still like first person shooters, despite their stagnant status and I don't critizise anyone for liking them, I just crtitizise those same people for critizising something that certainly tries to innovate, while they still keep buying franchises that rarely do.

I donīt understand the hype for Wreck it Ralph. Think it looks pretty standard with the usual jokes and a plot seemingly similar to monsters inc. Would probably help if i could understand the hype behind most Pixar films, but alas i cannot.

SupahGamuh:

RaikuFA:
Its not just that, its the double standard with it. You're allowed to bash someone for liking Mario yet when you bash someone for liking CoD.

Maybe I did. Don't get me wrong, I still like first person shooters, despite their stagnant status and I don't critizise anyone for liking them, I just crtitizise those same people for critizising something that certainly tries to innovate, while they still keep buying franchises that rarely do.

I was actually praising what you said. And I don't like it either. Innovation damned. The stuff is still fun.

Yep, way too much Batman. But let's throw yet another bloody mario sidescroller onto the pile because that never gets old. /sarcasm

Pixar is Pixar because of a metaphor anyone who wasn't brain dead in high school could have pointed out? Huh, ok.

I'm not all that impressed about the Brave trailer. Oh my, a girl who is not...GIRLY?! And so contrary to societal pressures too! I can't say I've ever before seen corsets and dresses used as a metaphor for female servitude.

I understand it is a kid's film, but I expected something a little smarter from Pixar. The best tomboy movie of all time came out more than 60 years ago: the 1953 musical, Calamity Jane. It bothers me that even with the benefit of a more enlightened, accommodating society, we still haven't been able to out do that movie in terms of depth and gender politics.

DVS BSTrD:
I actually wish Django Unchained was coming out before the election, just to see how many stupid white people it scares into voting for Romney. Hell they could at least put it on the day of the Mayan Apocalypse and see if a race war breaks out. JOKING! JOKING!

Well... in all seriousness... "You mean I get to kill white people and get paid for it? What's not to like?"... they aren't exactly going for subtlety.

If you replaced "white people" in the preceding sentence with any other ethnic group the movie wouldn't just be boycotted; it wouldn't even get a green light in the first place (at least not by any major studio). Southerners are pretty much the only people you can bash with impunity. Even "The Dictator" had a bunch of Arab-Americans decrying it.

People have a right to make whatever movies they want, but you're kidding yourself if you think this movie is going to help race-relations in America.

You can joke about white people being scared into voting one way or the other, but it isn't all about people being alarmist and thinking a race war is coming. The fact of the matter is that you have all sorts of people in the media basically insinuating that white Southerners are evil trash, and then people are surprised when Southern political views become radicalized. Maybe it's because they feel like a large portion of society hates them for something that happened before they were born and wants to destroy their way of life... wonder where they would get that idea...

And no, I'm not saying that slavery is off limits as artistic subject matter. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be surprised when the portion of society they enjoy demonizing starts to become vindictive.

MovieBob:
Junk Drawer Rises

This week, Moviebob takes a look at Wreck-It Ralph, the Super Mario franchise, and Django Unchained.

Watch Video

Ugh... here I go again. Let me start off by saying that people have a right to make whatever movies they want and that the following is just a general response to historical inaccuracy, partially as a means of venting and partially in the vain hopes that I might actually encourage someone to think for themselves and reexamine what they've been told about American history.

Now with those preliminary remarks out of the way...

WARNING, INCOMING HISTORICAL RANT

What popular movies always fail to mention is the fact that only the wealthiest 10% of southerners owned slaves, and that the slavery-based plantation system was essentially a huge economic hegemony that prevented less wealthy landowners from becoming successful. Take a wild guess who were the officers and who were the (most likely drafted) enlisted men in the Civil War. Saying that most of the Southerners who fought and died for the Confederacy did it because they loved slavery and wanted to own slaves one day is pretty much the same as saying that all the Americans who fought in Vietnam did it because they loved capitalism and wanted to become CEOs one day.

Add to this the fact that the South was economically devastated by the war and never recovered (Reconstruction, although a genuine good in its intention to integrate and acclimate the former slaves into Southern society, did little-to-nothing to repair the overall damage to the Southern infrastructure after the Civil War), and you can start to see why the constant berating of Southerners as evil uneducated hicks might be considered a bit unfair. It's pretty easy to make fun of someone for being uneducated after you've burnt down their schools.

The media loves to make fun of the South for being backward and rural because they seem to think this was some sort of conscious choice on the part of southerners. In fact it was mostly due to the deliberate economic sanctions placed upon the South by the federal government, in which the more highly populated Northern states controlled the House of Representatives. The Northern economy was predominantly industrial because its land wasn't productive for farming. The reason it had a higher population density was due to this fact: industrial jobs can support more people than farming. The South, on the other hand, had much better land for farming cash crops.

However, this is not the end of the story. One must realize that this was still in the very early stages of the industrial era, before cars and electronics. Before the Civil War the Northern economy was centered around the textile mills in New England, who refined cotton and sold it to Europe (and to a lesser degree iron founding). Of course, in order for your textile mills to make money you need cotton. Here's where the Northern political hegemony comes in. The North needed the cotton produced by the South. It doesn't take a genius to see how the South developing textile mills of its own would be extremely detrimental to the Northern economy, as the North was essentially acting as a middle man between the South and Europe.

Successful Southern harbors were also a direct threat to the Northern economy. One fact that people like to conveniently leave out of the history of slavery is that the slave trade operated through the ports of New England, not through Southern harbors. Someone who is predisposed to cynicism might be tempted to point out how anti-slavery sentiments in New England only seemed to gain traction once the slave trade was made obsolete by the existing population of African-Americans in the South. Many of the Ivy League colleges directly benefited from the slave trade, especially Brown: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/23/highereducation.internationaleducationnews

The result of all this was the North imposing crippling tariffs on the South to prevent it from developing harbors and industry, starting with the "Tariff of Abominations" of 1828 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations Tariffs such as this essentially trapped Southerners into buying and selling almost exclusively with the North by raising the taxes on international trade to prohibitive levels. While the South was able to counteract some of these tariffs, it was fighting a losing battle due to the strong majority that the Northern states held in the House of Representatives.

The idea that the Civil War was either about state's rights or about slavery as two mutually exclusive options is completely idiotic. While slavery is clearly immoral, only the most white-washed and simplistic view of history would lead one to think that Southerners were purely evil and solely concerned with upholding slavery while Northerners were utterly morally righteous and purely concerned with abolition. Unfortunately, that is almost always how it is portrayed in the media.

This is the kind of propaganda that made Orwell crap his pants.

The deification of Lincoln is the worst of all. There has been more scholarship published recently that has shown the many moral failings (which is an understatement) of Lincoln.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
Though some of it is a bit overblown, the real picture of Lincoln presented through many of his own recorded statements is pretty undeniable.

Just for starters, people like to skip over the fact that Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and then proceeded to throw dissenting journalists in jail without trials as well as a significant portion of the population of Maryland, which he feared would try to secede due to its ties to slavery.

While (contrary to what some critics have argued) Lincoln clearly opposed slavery, it is clear that he was more concerned with preserving the union. The much lauded Emancipation Proclamation was largely a wartime ploy; not only did it not apply to Northern slave-holding states, but it even had a clause that offered slavery to any states that ceased hostilities and rejoined the union before January 1st, 1863. One of his famous quotes was "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)

It is also clear that Lincoln considered white people to be superior to black people. For instance, in his debate with Douglass in 1858 he made the following remark:

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone."

Whether or not this and many of his other quotes were sincere or made merely for political gain is a matter of some controversy. It is clear that Lincoln abhorred slavery and thought that black people had a right to pursue happiness. However, it also seems evident that he considered whites to be superior to blacks, and it is probable, given the evidence, that he was at the very least skeptical whether the two could coexist in one society. His position seemed to be in favor of the colonization of Africa and to settle the freedmen there once slavery was eliminated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery#Colonization

Were this not enough, there is also ample evidence of his genocidal intentions towards Native Americans. He ordered the largest mass execution in US history against the Sioux: http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html His anti-Native American attitude was one of the primary reasons why the Cherokee Nation joined the Confederacy: http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/issues/lincoln.html

He also was clearly in favor of total war against the South and the deliberate targeting of the civilian population. He fully supported General Sherman's "March to the Sea", and when General Sheridan wrote to Lincoln that he had pillaged the Shenandoah valley to the point where "a crow could not fly over it without bringing its own food" he applauded his efforts. He even refused to provide medicine and food to Union prisoners at Andersonville when the Southern officials extended the offer (due to their own lack of resources) because he thought it would be more of a burden to the South. (While there was no doubt abuse at Andersonville, the orthodox versions of history often fail to point out that much of the suffering was due to a crippling lack of resources on the part of the Southern overseers.)

The fact that we blindly revere such a figure and ignore his faults is highly disturbing. I believe the most fitting expression of this is the Lincoln monument itself:

image

Notice that he is sitting on a throne and his arms rest on Roman fasces, symbols of power and authority; the Roman notion of imperium. The meaning of the imagery is clear: it directly compares Lincoln to Augustus (Octavian) Caesar, the man who ended the Roman Republic and established the Roman Empire.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here