[ SECRET POST #2577 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2577 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald-Crane, from the soap opera Passions]


__________________________________________________



03.
[BBC Sherlock]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Nobunaga the Fool]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia from Star Wars]


__________________________________________________



06.
[The Quick and the Dead]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Nathan Fillion]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Warehouse 13]


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 030 secrets from Secret Submission Post #368.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

What's wrong with being proud of your ancestors?

[(Anonymous)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubal_Early

OP probably doesn't like someone being proud of an ancestor who fought to keep slavery in place?

[kaijinscendre]

OP thinks he is saying it proudly. He could just think it is really interesting (which it is).

[(Anonymous)]

yeah, i probably should've included "OP probably doesn't like someone being what they perceive as proud of an ancestor who fought to keep slavery in place"

[(Anonymous)]

I actually went on Wikipedia to see if Jubal Early did anything particularly shameful. Other than being a Confederate general, since I have similar ancestors and no one in my family has ever expressed any shame about them and probably wouldn't like being told they shouldn't mention them or shoudl avoid seeming proud of them.

[(Anonymous)]

i checked as well, and i didn't see much out of the ordinary for a Confederate besides his high status. this is a lot of assumptions, but some people might see a higher status as more responsibility for events of the war, and there are some places in the United States where the Union/Confederate thing is still a big deal.

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps OP's notions of what is shameful differ from your family's notions of what should be considered shameful. I don't think it's impossible to assume that.

I think the broader point here is that there's no real connection between Fillion and Early, and no special reason to think that Fillion is trying to defend anything about Early.

[iceyred]

The ancestor in question is a Civil War General, on the Confederate side. The Confederates were fighting for slavery, and what I'm getting from this secret the OP seems to think that acknowledging a kinship with the man means that Nathan Fillion is a horrible person.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Horrible? No. This is a tiny little thing, the rest of his behavior can stand on its own, and I've never heard anything very horrible. But I don't understand why he'd make the claim if he's not proud of it, and I don't understand how someone could be proud of it if they don't buy into the noble-fallen-Confederacy mythos.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Woah, that's a huge leap.

I have a friend who's related to John Hinckley and has mentioned it in mixed company more than once, because it's a weird trivia fact about himself. I suppose you would conclude from that that he supports assassination as a way of impressing girls.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

The difference being that very few people admire John Hinckley for assassination as a way of impressing girls, while rather more than a few admire various Confederate generals. And also, I would guess your friend doesn't widely advertise the fact to people he doesn't personally know.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I'm pretty sure he mentioned it once and it's been picked up over and over again. It's not like he's bragging.

http://jimmyaquino.typepad.com/comicnewsinsider/2008/06/cni-one-shot-na.html

Re: OP

[iceyred]

Stating a fact =/= being proud of the fact. Sometimes people just bring up tidbits about themselves in conversation/interviews and that's all it is. A piece of information about himself.

Without context I don't see how you can claim that he believes in the noble-fallen-Confederacy myth. That's kind of presumptuous to guess a man's feelings on a war that ended 150 years ago.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

OP, Jubal Early was the name Joss chose for the bounty hunter who comes after River in Firefly. My guess is that's the context in which Fillion's relation to the *real* man came up. It's not like he trotted it out as something he's proud of--it's a funny coincidence that Joss named the character after one of Nathan's ancestors.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I dunno. People like being from somewhere, it really doesn't matter where. It's human nature to be proud of our ancestry, no matter what it is.

I've always perceived this situation as very "proud to be able to put a name on part of my history" more than the rest.

[greenvelvetcake]

'Early was an outspoken believer in white supremacy and despised the abolitionists. In the preface to his memoirs, Early wrote about former slaves as "barbarous natives of Africa", whom he believed were "in a civilized and Christianized condition" as a result of their enslavement.' Not exactly a point of pride.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh no! A person holds a commonly held belief for his historical time period. Stop the presses and pass the smelling salts. Seriously people. You cannot judge historical figures by contemporary standards.

[(Anonymous)]

I think we can reasonably assume that there are things that Early did and believed that were not universally accepted by people of the time, given that he was a general in a war fought on the fundamentally political issue of slavery.

I find it hard to take the "it was simply the spirit of the times" argument seriously in a case like that.

[(Anonymous)]

There was this little thing called 'state's rights and sovereignty' that came into play as well, but they seldom talk about that in the Reader's Digest Condensed version of history commonly taught today.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, bless you, anon.

The notion that the Civil War was fought over state's rights is fucking delusional and the only reason it has any traction is because of 4 or 5 generations of descendants of Confederates desperately trying to find some way to pretend that their side had been fighting to defend anything other than slavery. It's true that the commonplace version of history is misleading in the way in which it says the war was about slavery - it certainly wasn't a grand crusade to free the slaves; rather, it was an attack launched by the South to stop what they saw as a gradual process that would lead to the destruction of the economic system built around slavery. But, as much as it was complicated and involved, slavery was still the central issue. Slavery had been one of the central issues in US politics during the 20 or 30 years before the war (along with tariffs, which were also an issue that was basically about the different economic models of the North and the South, hence intimately related to slavery).

There's a reason that Abraham Lincoln spent most of his first inaugural trying (and failing) to convince the South that he wasn't going to touch the slaves. There's a reason that most of the people talking about secession and the declarations of grievances in the South explicitly talked about the defense of slavery - go read South Carolina's Declaration of Immediate Causes and tell me that it had nothing to do with slavery. Look at Georgia's, which mentions slavery in the second sentence. Look at Mississippi's, which states that, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." There's a reason that Bloody Kansas was about slavery and there's a reason the South was obsessed with finding ways to add slave states. States' rights were a secondary concern. The whole conflict was centered around the question of whether the South could maintain its slaves.

The Civil War was about slavery. It. Was. About. Slavery. There is no way to look at the things that people did and said at the time and deny this. You are wrong. There are no two ways about this.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

State's rights and sovereignty only when it supported the right to own, transport, and sell slaves. The fire eaters at the Nashville Convention rejected the compromise of popular sovereignty which permitted territories to abolish slavery by popular vote. And then they rejected it again in the 1960 primaries by walking out of the Democratic party and nominating their own candidate.

[(Anonymous)]

The right to hold slaves was explicitly enshrined in the constitution of the CSA (Article I, Section 9). They went out of their way to make sure that, should they have won, people in the CSA would still be allowed to own other people for the foreseeable future. What more evidence do you need that they were really, really focused on the importance of slavery?

While the Civil War might have answered questions about states' rights and sovereignty, those questions weren't the reason for it.

[greenvelvetcake]

No, I'm pretty sure I can and will happily judge someone who thought black people were inherently inferior to white people. Calling it a "commonly held belief" doesn't make it any less wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

You must be very young. I can remember times when it was a commonly held belief that there was a genetic inferiority. Seemingly rational people would argue this. Even kind and gentle people would argue in favor of being kind as if they were arguing humane treatment for a puppy. This attitude and belief system was commonplace and accepted.
Times have most definitely changed, if you can't put yourself in the mindset of the time, please yourself do not judge.

[diet_poison]

commonly held =/= automatically okay

I don't think he has to be ashamed of his ancestry, but I wouldn't be proud of (that particular part of) it either. Interesting fact, yes; moment of pride, no.

Which means a lot depends on which this actually was.