Unbranded; without a registered trademark.

 

graphicsbywhis:

Day 21: Civil War Battles
Memorial Day, originally Decoration Day, was first celebrated after the Civil War to commemorate the lives of lost soldiers. Here’s a little history on the bloodiest war in American history. And of course, let’s remember all soldiers we’ve lost in all wars today. 

Why why why would you color the Confederacy blue.

graphicsbywhis:

Day 21: Civil War Battles

Memorial Day, originally Decoration Day, was first celebrated after the Civil War to commemorate the lives of lost soldiers. Here’s a little history on the bloodiest war in American history. And of course, let’s remember all soldiers we’ve lost in all wars today. 

Why why why would you color the Confederacy blue.

Played 19 times

"… the past didn’t go anywhere, did it? It’s right here, right now. I always thought that anybody who told me I couldn’t live in the past was trying to get me to forget something that if I remembered it, it would get them in serious trouble. No, that 50s, 60s, 70s, 90s stuff, that whole idea of decade packaging, things don’t happen that way …

No, that packaging of time is a journalistic convenience that they use to trivialize and to dismiss important events and important ideas. I defy that.” 

― Utah Phillips

Longtime readers of this space know which part of Accidental Racist would troll me the hardest: the popularity of the Confederate flag.
The song will come and go, but the treasonous, racist symbol (whose design is far superior to the American flag) will still be displayed everywhere south of the Mason-Dixon.
Brad Paisley implies the flag is about Southern Heritage, as though from the distant, sepia-toned past. He’s wrong. Southerners weren’t using it until the Civil Rights movement.
politicalprof:

 From 1865 (the end of the Civil War) until the 1950s SOUTHERNERS DID NOT USE THE “REBEL FLAG” AS A SYMBOL OF “NATIONAL” PRIDE OR “SOUTHERN” IDENTITY.
In the 1950s, the Civil Rights Movement began advocating for racial change around the US, and particularly in the South. Members sought the end of Jim Crow and to have full rights as citizens of the United States, which they had been denied since at least the end of Reconstruction in 1877.
In response, many Southerners adopted the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of resistance to federal efforts to end Jim Crow and to end segregation. Just as Southerners fought the federal government to protect slavery and states’ rights, they would now fight the federal government to protect segregation and states’ rights.
The Rebel Flag was, is and remains a symbol of a movement that would have, in its time, protected slavery, and would, today, protect segregation and racial bias. The notion that it is a naive symbol of a culture is utter nonsense.

It isn’t about slavery per se, it’s about segregation. In the 20th century, the Stars and Bars were a kind of campaign logo for Jim Crow laws, which didn’t end until 1965.
That wasn’t very long ago. Using a Confederate flag as a segregationist symbol is well within living memory. When Dixiecrats heard Martin Luther King was shot, they flew that flag on their front porch in support of the shooter. 
There’s a 55 year old black man working in downtown Atlanta right now. He can remember having to use “Colored” drinking fountains when he was in second grade. He can remember “Whites Only” counters and moving to the back of the bus. He’s not from the distant past. He’s still in the workforce. He’s a full decade away from retirement. This hypothetical black man might not even have stayed in the South. He might be your boss or your coworker. He could be Stanley from The Office (actor Leslie Baker, age 55). In fact, he’s only 10 years older than LL Cool J, who turned 45 this year.

Longtime readers of this space know which part of Accidental Racist would troll me the hardest: the popularity of the Confederate flag.

The song will come and go, but the treasonous, racist symbol (whose design is far superior to the American flag) will still be displayed everywhere south of the Mason-Dixon.

Brad Paisley implies the flag is about Southern Heritage, as though from the distant, sepia-toned past. He’s wrong. Southerners weren’t using it until the Civil Rights movement.

politicalprof:

  •  From 1865 (the end of the Civil War) until the 1950s SOUTHERNERS DID NOT USE THE “REBEL FLAG” AS A SYMBOL OF “NATIONAL” PRIDE OR “SOUTHERN” IDENTITY.
  • In the 1950s, the Civil Rights Movement began advocating for racial change around the US, and particularly in the South. Members sought the end of Jim Crow and to have full rights as citizens of the United States, which they had been denied since at least the end of Reconstruction in 1877.
  • In response, many Southerners adopted the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of resistance to federal efforts to end Jim Crow and to end segregation. Just as Southerners fought the federal government to protect slavery and states’ rights, they would now fight the federal government to protect segregation and states’ rights.
  • The Rebel Flag was, is and remains a symbol of a movement that would have, in its time, protected slavery, and would, today, protect segregation and racial bias. The notion that it is a naive symbol of a culture is utter nonsense.

It isn’t about slavery per se, it’s about segregation. In the 20th century, the Stars and Bars were a kind of campaign logo for Jim Crow laws, which didn’t end until 1965.

That wasn’t very long ago. Using a Confederate flag as a segregationist symbol is well within living memory. When Dixiecrats heard Martin Luther King was shot, they flew that flag on their front porch in support of the shooter. 

There’s a 55 year old black man working in downtown Atlanta right now. He can remember having to use “Colored” drinking fountains when he was in second grade. He can remember “Whites Only” counters and moving to the back of the bus. He’s not from the distant past. He’s still in the workforce. He’s a full decade away from retirement. This hypothetical black man might not even have stayed in the South. He might be your boss or your coworker. He could be Stanley from The Office (actor Leslie Baker, age 55). In fact, he’s only 10 years older than LL Cool J, who turned 45 this year.

James Gurney’s terrific fantasy art will eventually lead you down the rabbit hole to this totally serious, not-at-all-joking, biblical fanfic Dinosaurs of Eden, which I may or or may not have just purchased on Amazon for $11.19.

You can have your Batmans and your Zorros. In San Francisco, we form vigilante committees.
Due process is a real bitch while fighting civil unrest and political corruption.
Shit happens, someone has to deal with it, and who ya gonna call?
Now accepting applications. Muttonchops preferred but not required.

You can have your Batmans and your Zorros. In San Franciscowe form vigilante committees.

Due process is a real bitch while fighting civil unrest and political corruption.

Shit happens, someone has to deal with it, and who ya gonna call?

Now accepting applications. Muttonchops preferred but not required.

Yes, and a wrench is not a hammer. Specialized tools do the job better. That’s the point.
The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is a militia.
The whole point of a militia is to substitute for a military.
The whole point of a military is lethal force.
It’s almost patronizing to suggest that a military is best equipped with military-grade weaponry. This isn’t rocket science. 
So instead of arguing whether the 2nd Amendment was about enforcing slavery or the true definition of “well-regulated,” how about we just repeal this archaic, bat-shit crazy law and get on with the work of civilization?
Does anybody care about the insurrectional power of a musket versus an AK-47? Do we really? An overthrow of the United States government, possessed of the greatest military force the world has ever seen? By a bunch of rednecks with Bushmasters? Ludicrous.
Why not admit the framers did not craft the founding documents on stone tablets atop Mount Olympus and amend the United States Constitution, as though we were a grown-ups capable of our own governance?
Yes, it’ll be difficult and yes, such a repeal probably won’t pass in our lifetimes. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.
Background checks are great. Banning assault weapons is better. But neither of those will pass without ugly, protracted debates. So it’s just a question of how ugly and protracted you’re willing to get. Little children in Connecticut are getting massacred so my tolerance is pretty high.

Yes, and a wrench is not a hammer. Specialized tools do the job better. That’s the point.

  • The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is a militia.
  • The whole point of a militia is to substitute for a military.
  • The whole point of a military is lethal force.

It’s almost patronizing to suggest that a military is best equipped with military-grade weaponry. This isn’t rocket science.

So instead of arguing whether the 2nd Amendment was about enforcing slavery or the true definition of “well-regulated,” how about we just repeal this archaic, bat-shit crazy law and get on with the work of civilization?

Does anybody care about the insurrectional power of a musket versus an AK-47? Do we really? An overthrow of the United States government, possessed of the greatest military force the world has ever seen? By a bunch of rednecks with Bushmasters? Ludicrous.

Why not admit the framers did not craft the founding documents on stone tablets atop Mount Olympus and amend the United States Constitution, as though we were a grown-ups capable of our own governance?

Yes, it’ll be difficult and yes, such a repeal probably won’t pass in our lifetimes. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

Background checks are great. Banning assault weapons is better. But neither of those will pass without ugly, protracted debates. So it’s just a question of how ugly and protracted you’re willing to get. Little children in Connecticut are getting massacred so my tolerance is pretty high.

What’s intriguing about this 1931 map is how much beer they’re still drinking in the Rust Belt during Prohibition. That map would track reasonably well with a map of today.
But after nearly a decade of temperance, why all the beer? As a drug, it’s inferior to liquor or wine because the lower proof means lower street value. As contraband, it’s harder to smuggle because it takes up more mass. Distribution is difficult because, well, how many bottles of beer can your average scofflaw walk away with? Otherwise they have to consume it on site, at the speakeasy or wherever. Maybe there were advantages in brewing speed? More turnover = greater profit?
Looking at this map you’d think Prohibition had practically no affect on drinking habits at all. Funny, that.

What’s intriguing about this 1931 map is how much beer they’re still drinking in the Rust Belt during Prohibition. That map would track reasonably well with a map of today.

But after nearly a decade of temperance, why all the beer? As a drug, it’s inferior to liquor or wine because the lower proof means lower street value. As contraband, it’s harder to smuggle because it takes up more mass. Distribution is difficult because, well, how many bottles of beer can your average scofflaw walk away with? Otherwise they have to consume it on site, at the speakeasy or wherever. Maybe there were advantages in brewing speed? More turnover = greater profit?

Looking at this map you’d think Prohibition had practically no affect on drinking habits at all. Funny, that.

squashed:
It’s not that the chart crosses disciplines. It’s that the chart  crosses disciplines and makes serious errors in all of them.
Serious errors in all of them? The advancement of technology doesn’t broadly track with this graph? Can you show me evidence to the contrary? Because that’s news to me.
It’s like  math, but with no data. It’s like history, but it clings to a  discredited narrative invented by a bunch of guys who wanted to see  themselves as heirs to the Roman empire.
Lump me in with that bunch of guys then. The entire modern age is the inheritor of Roman technology. It’s just that, historically and geographically, some groups inherited it before others (read: Western). It’s not like the Japanese took the gunpowder thing and ran with it.
It’s like a sociology—but it  advances the absurd narrative that a strain of progress can be traced  from Egypt, through Rome, to the Enlightenment in Western Europe.
Absurd? The Greeks didn’t invent the sundial. The Romans didn’t invent the bell-tower. Americans didn’t invent the pocketwatch. And yet? Progress! iPhones! An upward trend of technological advancement! The notion that those groups made their technologies from scratch strikes me as absurd. The notion that they didn’t inherit their technologies from each other strikes me as revisionist. Advances happened elsewhere, but that’s outside the scope of this graph.
This chart could be done right. First, it would need a meaningful  metric. Somebody’s vague impression of scientific advancement doesn’t  cut it.
Yeah, I get that it doesn’t have a quantifiable metric on the y axis. But that depends on what you’re trying to cut. If I made exhaustive graphs of the advances in medicine, warfare, architecture, and maybe three or four other fields, and then averaged them together, it would look a whole helluva of lot like this picture.
Secondly, it needs a bit of rigor in how it chooses its periods.
Balderdash. We know what happened between the 5th and 15th centuries. At this scale we need all the rigor of a 7th grade textbook.
Does it take the scientific advancement of the world as a whole?
No. We answered that question earlier. This is a simple graph of Western Civ.
In  that case, it needs to consider China. Is it restricting itself to  Europe? Then get rid of Egypt.
Now who’s being ethnocentric? And ahistorical. Saying I should include China or exclude Egypt is like saying the Greeks invented theater. (Don’t get me started.)
Should you focus on a single country?
No.
Say, Germany? How was Germany doing during the Roman Empire? Did the  arrival of Christianity make it better or worse?
So you just dismiss any wide angle lens out of hand? If I want to illustrate a point about Western culture over the course of four millenniums, I need to concentrate on Germany?  There’s no connective tissue between the technologies of these eras? You’re killin me, Smalls.
If the point of the chart is to make bald assertions and not back  them up—that’s fine. But it’s presented as if it conveys useful  information. It doesn’t.
It simplifies a conclusion like graphs do all the time. Look, this is crazy. That’s the arc of technological advancement in the Western world. It just is. There’s the Industrial Revolution right at the little mark where the 19th century starts. There’s the the fall of Rome, in the 4th. You can quibble about the Greco-Roman overlap, but that’s when those things happened. It needn’t to go any further than that when we’re rounding off centuries.
Besides, what are we actually arguing about here? If we erase the “Christian” part, would you have raised any objection? If a chart had “anthropogenic pollution” on the Y axis and these eras on the X axis, with a terrifying Al Gore slope, would you call it a bald assertion? Would you dismiss it as a junk infographic? Maybe. But it’s not junk sociology or fuzzy math to say there was a monolithic institution that frowned on scientific advancement when it  flew in the face of revealed truth. That period of superstition is outlined in black.
(via ageofreason)

squashed:

It’s not that the chart crosses disciplines. It’s that the chart crosses disciplines and makes serious errors in all of them.

Serious errors in all of them? The advancement of technology doesn’t broadly track with this graph? Can you show me evidence to the contrary? Because that’s news to me.

It’s like math, but with no data. It’s like history, but it clings to a discredited narrative invented by a bunch of guys who wanted to see themselves as heirs to the Roman empire.

Lump me in with that bunch of guys then. The entire modern age is the inheritor of Roman technology. It’s just that, historically and geographically, some groups inherited it before others (read: Western). It’s not like the Japanese took the gunpowder thing and ran with it.

It’s like a sociology—but it advances the absurd narrative that a strain of progress can be traced from Egypt, through Rome, to the Enlightenment in Western Europe.

Absurd? The Greeks didn’t invent the sundial. The Romans didn’t invent the bell-tower. Americans didn’t invent the pocketwatch. And yet? Progress! iPhones! An upward trend of technological advancement! The notion that those groups made their technologies from scratch strikes me as absurd. The notion that they didn’t inherit their technologies from each other strikes me as revisionist. Advances happened elsewhere, but that’s outside the scope of this graph.

This chart could be done right. First, it would need a meaningful metric. Somebody’s vague impression of scientific advancement doesn’t cut it.

Yeah, I get that it doesn’t have a quantifiable metric on the y axis. But that depends on what you’re trying to cut. If I made exhaustive graphs of the advances in medicine, warfare, architecture, and maybe three or four other fields, and then averaged them together, it would look a whole helluva of lot like this picture.

Secondly, it needs a bit of rigor in how it chooses its periods.

Balderdash. We know what happened between the 5th and 15th centuries. At this scale we need all the rigor of a 7th grade textbook.

Does it take the scientific advancement of the world as a whole?

No. We answered that question earlier. This is a simple graph of Western Civ.

In that case, it needs to consider China. Is it restricting itself to Europe? Then get rid of Egypt.

Now who’s being ethnocentric? And ahistorical. Saying I should include China or exclude Egypt is like saying the Greeks invented theater. (Don’t get me started.)

Should you focus on a single country?

No.

Say, Germany? How was Germany doing during the Roman Empire? Did the arrival of Christianity make it better or worse?

So you just dismiss any wide angle lens out of hand? If I want to illustrate a point about Western culture over the course of four millenniums, I need to concentrate on Germany?  There’s no connective tissue between the technologies of these eras? You’re killin me, Smalls.

If the point of the chart is to make bald assertions and not back them up—that’s fine. But it’s presented as if it conveys useful information. It doesn’t.

It simplifies a conclusion like graphs do all the time. Look, this is crazy. That’s the arc of technological advancement in the Western world. It just is. There’s the Industrial Revolution right at the little mark where the 19th century starts. There’s the the fall of Rome, in the 4th. You can quibble about the Greco-Roman overlap, but that’s when those things happened. It needn’t to go any further than that when we’re rounding off centuries.

Besides, what are we actually arguing about here? If we erase the “Christian” part, would you have raised any objection? If a chart had “anthropogenic pollution” on the Y axis and these eras on the X axis, with a terrifying Al Gore slope, would you call it a bald assertion? Would you dismiss it as a junk infographic? Maybe. But it’s not junk sociology or fuzzy math to say there was a monolithic institution that frowned on scientific advancement when it flew in the face of revealed truth. That period of superstition is outlined in black.

(via ageofreason)