Wyzilla wrote: My quote button didn't work, was supposed to be quoting Iron from page one.
Although I also have heard of some people talking about banning it, but never in force. But any talk of banning symbols needs to be brought down in regards to America- it goes against our ideals as a nation.
(Or at least the ones we're supposed to hold)
Ah, fair enough. I agree that it shouldn't be banned. Removing any state level involvement (license plates etc) is all the government action needed.
Outside of that the important thing is to inform people of what it really meant, and how it was really used.
Wyzilla wrote: Don't ban it. The day Free Speech dies is the same day my faith in this nation continuing to be semi-decent dies as well. Exceptions besides destructive libel or screaming in a fire in a theater can't be added, it flies in the face of some of the concepts this nation was founded upon.
The Confederate Flag may be a disgusting symbol of traitors, but that isn't grounds to ban it. For the same reason of protecting free speech, I fully support the public usage of Swastikas or pointy white hats. Not only does it help us identify the asses of society, but it also ensures we remember.
Ignorance of the past begets horrors of the future.
h
The government is NOT "banning" the Confederate Flag. It is just pushing for its elimination from government buildings and offices, and to complete the Reconstruction work of eliminating the overt adoption of traitors as rallying points for racists from the public.
Private individuals will still be able to buy Confederate Flags (but likely, at this point - as it should be - only from racist organizations, or explicitly historical foundations who will likely vet their customers to only provide for legitimate historical use of the flags).
Doing this is EXACTLY what we should be doing, as it puts the flag in its PROPER CONTEXT: the symbol of racist traitors used by other racists as a means of self-identification.
This makes it VERY EASY for the rest of polite society to INSTANTLY recognize another as a racist, if they willingly adopt the symbols of a racist and traitorous group, whose sole reason for existence was the continued propagation of the institution of slavery of the black man (and woman).
The South, in their various statements of secession made it very clear that their formation of the Confederate States was about Slavery, and that they believed it was their divine right to own slaves, which they saw as being, not human beings (the only recognized "human beings" to the Confederacy was the "White Man" - read any of their statements and this is clear), but rather they saw Black Hmans as "lesser animals" over which they had been granted dominion by God.
So... Free Speech will remain.
People will retain the right to label themselves a racist, bigot, and sympathizer of traitors as they do now, by the adoption of whatever symbols they wish.
BeAfraid wrote: WHY EXACTLY are people looking for reasons to white-wash this issue, to look for an excuse to retain a symbol of Traitors to our Nation, or to the USA?
I am puzzled by this as well. I am also puzzled by people who have pride in their ancestors' participation in the CSA army. It wasn't long ago that we, as a country, were labeling one another traitors depending on how we ordered our fried potatoes (were they the French variety or full of FREEDOM?) and yet it is perfectly acceptable to want to honor those who took up arms against our nation. Very puzzling indeed.
My family on my father's side were officers and NCOs in the Confederate Army (we were slave-owning landholders in East Texas).
It was a source of great shame to my grandfather, and to his father (the whole story is sorrid and tragic in the level of hatred some in my family had, and still have - my great-grandfather's brother's never recovered economically as a result of their refusal to let go of what had been lost in the war). And my grandfather communicated to me that it should never be something I was proud of. The language he used was probably the strongest I ever heard from him.
It just goes to show that Reconstruction in the USA failed, and that work remains to be done in establishing that we do not make heroes out of traitors, or out of racists, no matter the depth of history involved.
MANY of the officers in the Third Reich came from ANCIENT Hapsburg lines in Austria, who were honorable men, yet not so honorable that they were not willing to fight for an evil cause.
Which remains the case with the men and generals who fought for the CSA. They failed the test of "good men" when they fought for an evil cause.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I find it funny that when it comes to the confederacy, people who would normally be moral absolutists become moral relativists.
Exactly!
Their inability to differentiate between a people remaining true to their oaths, while struggling with moral issues, and people who betrayed their oaths, LONG AFTER the moral issue has been settled (coincidentally, settle opposite to what the traitors desire) is a mystery (technically, it isn't a mystery. I have had too much coursework in cognitive dissonance, the backfire effect, and defensiveness surrounding values to pretend to be ignorant of why people are unable to make that distinction - they wish to avoid the unpleasantness of realizing how horrifically wrong, and possibly outright evil their beliefs are).
I am in company of quite a few people who went through that transition (including myself - if this were 1989, I would be one of the people trying to defend the CSA, much to the horror of my grandfather, were he still alive then).
And we all report that the effects of the realization of how poorly one has chosen their "values" is one that many people do not survive, choosing suicide instead (Ted Haggard, for instance, talks about this in the book "he" wrote after it became apparent that he had sex with men as well - he reported that he would rather have taken his life than confront who he really was).
So... I cannot pretend to ignorance in why people are defending their diet-racism.
jasper76 wrote: Here's a funny piece from Petri of the WaPost called "Every state flag is wrong, and here is why" on how hideous almost all the US state flags are:
“You mean this isn’t taken yet?” Texas asked. “How is this not taken? This was literally the first thing I thought of.”
I liked:
“Two words: Confederate Yugoslavia.” “But neither of those places exists any longer.” “Sounds to me like their flags are free for the taking.” “Well –” “MISSISSIPPI!”
Virginia was the best. Also stealing the angry woman leading a revolution with one breast exposed (but only one) while wearing a funny hat from La liberté guidant le peuple. Dirty American thieves! DEATH TO THE KING! DEATH TO THE TYRANT! DEATH TO THE DICTATOR!
I think it's a shame when symbols get taken over by hate groups. A similar thing happened in the UK with the union jack. It's a pretty flag and it would be nice if we could fly it and wear it proudly, but it has become synonymous with racism and imperialism now. I think the confederacy flag is also a pretty flag, and I don't see why it couldn't stand for nice things, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the south having its own identity: Southern fried chicken, Easy Rider and Daisy Duke. I think the only way to claim these symbols back from hate groups is to use them, and keep using them in a positive way.
Orlanth wrote: Late to this discussion, but the idea that the Confederacy was 'evil' is two dimensional at best.
Not if you properly understand how nations can be judged. It’s gibberish to think of a whole people as evil, or to think that people in a nation are more likely than others to take individual evil actions. It is institutions which the nation operates that are evil.
So, for instance, by your understanding you think because the South is deemed therefore it’s armies must fight less honourably, and so proof they didn’t means the South mustn’t have been an evil institution. But that’s nonsense, troops can fight bravely and honourably in defence of a nation that is built around immoral institutions.
This is where reading posts properly would help your understanding.
My entire argument is about not judging the nations of the past by 21st century standards.
There is a modern connotation on people saying the 'Confederacy was evil', and pointing out that the South for the most part was commanded and fought honourably does matter.
The Victorian age justified colonialism, whether it was the conquest of the West, or South America, Africa, India or Indo-China.
Of course the Victorian age justified colonialism, nations always find some way or another to justify behaviour that is in it’s own economic advantage. That doesn’t mean colonialism was okay.
Nice to see you can occassionally see the sense, this is the entire gist of my commentary. Now follow the logical thread:
The American Confederacy was a cause of the time, and efforts to retroactively condemn it are just ignorant revisionism. The only excuse to condemn them at all is on the grounds they failed.
Only if we insist on following a moral understanding with personal judgements. Which would be pointless nonsense. It is quite simple to recognise institutions as unethical or even evil, without having to personally condemn every person who part of those institutions.
Contining the local threadfrom above:
While individal action is part of the hisorical record and relevant we have to look at the nations as a whole.
On try doing so.
Yes the Confederacy had a slave economy, both parts of the US had a stolen land economy, and practiced genocide of native peoples to claim that land. As Native American rights were so far off the map, even when some rights for blacks were emerging.
The hard reality was that the Confederacy as alike to all the other colonial civilizations of the 19th century. They took form peoples they believed inferior. If one is judgeable as evil, why not the others.
This was a colonial era and the Confederacy as morally a product of its time, it wasn't morally on a lower par to contemporary nation states except in terms of propaganda persisting erroneously to the present day.
A good example of this highly skewed revisionism is the current complaining by Argentina over the Falkland islands. The kernel of the international support is a condemnation of British colonialism, yet Argentina is a product of Spanish colonialism, which was the same if not worse. Airbrushing out of Spanish and even Argentine colonialism is necessary to make the moral point, not that it would be valid even then, but that is another issue.
It suited Lincoln to paint the South as evil due to slavery, and with credit to him it worked and it was during war so was a air strategem. Now a century and a half later the guilt trip should stop. There has to be a lot of airbrushing of US history to make the Confederacy appear evil in comparison. It isn't necessary now, and isn't morally justifiable to see distant history through a distorted perspective. The Confederacy was no more inherently 'evil' than its contemporary colonial nation states.
That’s a really weird kind of generalisation, sure there are examples of nations standing for inalienable principles, but there’s also plenty of cases where they didn’t. They were inconsistent in their moral convictions, same as we are today.
It fairly well sums up the Victorian mindset frankly, and generalisations are in order to put the point across.
You will always find 'plenty' of cases of exceptions over the mindsets of a people group over a century Sebster, that doesnt invalidate the comment.
The Victorians were closer to moral absolutism than e are today, yet this moralism was clearly selective.
You should be honest about that much at least as all summaries of nation states are generalisations, and that is what this threat topic is about: Summary opinions on the Confederacy.
Yep. People ask why people keep going on about slavery... but people keep going on about the Civil War. That's how people function. History leaves a mark for centuries.
What you are describing is historical culture. It's one of the reasons why flying the Confederate flag should be ok. It's a cultural root, people should be able to say 'this is my ancestry, this is my heritage',
without label.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
I got to ask, is it your belief that non-whites cannot be racist?
Because La Raza and The Black Panther Party don't typically donate to GOP candidates.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: No, it really doesn't. A German can honor their ancestors gallantry in battle without flying the flag of the Third Reich.
That is different,
How so?
1. The Swastika is uniquely and formally banned by UN treaty as a political symbol.
2. Its also more recent history, its also directly tied with ideology as it was not a nationalistic flag of the German peoples, but an imposed party symbol. The swastika (in Nazis usage) was never a German symbol, it never truly represented Germany, it represented the Nazi party.
3. The iron cross is a German symbol and is far more acceptable. The Reichsflagge is also acceptable. There is also the Bundes- und Handelsflagge which was very similar to the current German flag and was the national flag until the rise of Naziism.
The Confederate flag however was a cultural symbol relating the the common ancestry of the descendants of the separatist sates. It can be taken in that context and it should be the assumed default context for flying the flag without good reason to suggest otherwise.
If this is in any way difficult to understand ask yourself why the 'sons of the south' rose up. Did the opinions on slavery differ by latitude? Not really, the geographic element was cultural. People on border states chose a side, often dividing families, those further north or south tended (with the usual caveat of personal exception) to stick with their lcal allegiance. The why may vary, but the choice was obviously regional
This muchis obvious, but at that point most thinking sadly stops. As the choice to serve the confederacy was geographic rather than doctrinal then the symbol is geographic also. Someonn a deep southern state, say Florida, who raise the Stars and Bars is raising a geographical cultural symbol, because that is what it was, first and foremost. History should understand that, finger pointers should also.
If however you insist on painting the Confederate flag as a doctrinal symbol then it would have had to have had a doctrinal core. For this to be true there would be no north vs south, but an ideological divide which woudn't follow geographic boundaries. History has never supported that. The American civil war was always seen as regional, but despite this consistency a consistent look at the Confederate iconography has not followed.
The stars and bars is a de facto regional heritage symbol, motives for raising it can of course vary and racists can and do use it. However it is illogical to assume racism is the root for doing so as the symbol has valid regional heritage connexion, and also because those wanting less bigotry should apply that measure to themselves and not prejudge. Especially not with that sort of heavy moral label.
Jim Webb wrote:This is an emotional time and we all need to think through these issues with a care that recognizes the need for change but also respects the complicated history of the Civil War. The Confederate Battle Flag has wrongly been used for racist and other purposes in recent decades. It should not be used in any way as a political symbol that divides us.
But we should also remember that honorable Americans fought on both sides in the Civil War, including slaveholders in the Union Army from states such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and that many non-slave holders fought for the South. It was in recognition of the character of soldiers on both sides that the federal government authorized the construction of the Confederate Memorial 100 years ago, on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.
This is a time for us to come together, and to recognize once more that our complex multicultural society is founded on the principle of mutual respect.
Jim Webb wrote:This is an emotional time and we all need to think through these issues with a care that recognizes the need for change but also respects the complicated history of the Civil War. The Confederate Battle Flag has wrongly been used for racist and other purposes in recent decades. It should not be used in any way as a political symbol that divides us.
But we should also remember that honorable Americans fought on both sides in the Civil War, including slaveholders in the Union Army from states such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and that many non-slave holders fought for the South. It was in recognition of the character of soldiers on both sides that the federal government authorized the construction of the Confederate Memorial 100 years ago, on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.
This is a time for us to come together, and to recognize once more that our complex multicultural society is founded on the principle of mutual respect.
The Confederate flag.
1. It IS a historical emblem.
2. It can be abused as a hate emblem.
3. Those who assume it is always the latter when displayed are themselves hysterical bigots.
Next person to snarkily inform people they need to work on 'reading comprehension', say something along the lines of 'well at least be honest about X', call the entire other side of an argument bigots, or at least try and frame a statement in that direction while tip toeing on the edge of exactly what I just said, eats it. For at least a day. Stop it now
"Stars and bars", the flag of the confederacy, which represents southern heritage, is not the same thing as the southern cross which was explicitly designed to represent the southern slave owner and his dominion over his African slaves as they point south into South America.
So everyone can stop calling the "confederate flag" "stars and bars" please. A majority of the battles in the civil war were not fought under the Tennessee battle flag which is known today as the confederate flag.
Orlanth wrote: 2. Its also more recent history, its also directly tied with ideology as it was not a nationalistic flag of the German peoples, but an imposed party symbol. The swastika (in Nazis usage) was never a German symbol, it never truly represented Germany, it represented the Nazi party.
Well, the Battle Flag represented an army instead of a political party or a country. That does not seem like such a big difference to me. The battle flag was not the flag of the South before becoming the flag of the Confederate army (unless I am mistaken) and was not the flag of the South after (at least officially).
Orlanth wrote: If this is in any way difficult to understand ask yourself why the 'sons of the south' rose up.
I am not familiar enough with the U.S. history to know what you are talking about.
Orlanth wrote: As the choice to serve the confederacy was geographic rather than doctrinal then the symbol is geographic also. Someonn a deep southern state, say Florida, who raise the Stars and Bars is raising a geographical cultural symbol, because that is what it was, first and foremost.
The choice to serve the nazis was very geographical. It was basically: if you live in a zone controlled by the nazi, you serve them. They did not really left you a choice. I am pretty sure it was the same during the ACW, one could not just say “Well, I am for the USA” when in Southern territories or “Well, I am for the CSA” when in the North, could they?
Orlanth wrote: If however you insist on painting the Confederate flag as a doctrinal symbol then it would have had to have had a doctrinal core. For this to be true there would be no north vs south, but an ideological divide which woudn't follow geographic boundaries.
There was no real ideological divide among Europe about Nazism either, mostly because it was saying Germans were superior to everyone else. Nobody else wanted to be a second-class citizen. So, how is this different exactly? Does that make the Nazi flag a regional symbol?
I do not understand what makes the Battle Flag more of a regional symbol than the Nazi flag. I do however understand that Germans have tons of other regional symbols they can use, unlike Southern U.S., but I feel that is a problem that should be solved not by using the Battle Flag, but rather by introducing new regional symbols.
Orlanth wrote: However it is illogical to assume racism is the root for doing so as the symbol has valid regional heritage connexion
I am not sure I feel this regional heritage connexion is valid, that is the point. I feel it is not, because of the only context in which this flag had an official meaning, which is pretty tainted. If it had a wider official usage, that would be different.
nkelsch wrote: "Stars and bars", the flag of the confederacy, which represents southern heritage, is not the same thing as the southern cross which was explicitly designed to represent the southern slave owner and his dominion over his African slaves as they point south into South America.
So everyone can stop calling the "confederate flag" "stars and bars" please. A majority of the battles in the civil war were not fought under the Tennessee battle flag which is known today as the confederate flag.
Nothing unusual in that. The English Civil War throws up similar discrepancies, colloquial thought of as red vs blue uniform colours were often exchanged or otherwise very different.
The choice to serve the Nazis was very geographical. It was basically: if you live in a zone controlled by the nazi, you serve them. They did not really left you a choice. I am pretty sure it was the same during the ACW, one could not just say “Well, I am for the USA” when in Southern territories or “Well, I am for the CSA” when in the North, could they?
The Nazi iconography was directly ideological, it replaced the coexisting regional organisation and flag for the same region.
The Confederate iconography represented a new regional identity, the southern states in seperation from the North.
There was no real ideological divide among Europe about Nazism either, mostly because it was saying Germans were superior to everyone else. Nobody else wanted to be a second-class citizen. So, how is this different exactly? Does that make the Nazi flag a regional symbol?
I do not understand what makes the Battle Flag more of a regional symbol than the Nazi flag. I do however understand that Germans have tons of other regional symbols they can use, unlike Southern U.S., but I feel that is a problem that should be solved not by using the Battle Flag, but rather by introducing new regional symbols.
That removes the historical context. The German regional symbols coexisted with the Nazi ones and thus can substitute.
Orlanth wrote: However it is illogical to assume racism is the root for doing so as the symbol has valid regional heritage connexion
I am not sure I feel this regional heritage connexion is valid, that is the point. I feel it is not, because of the only context in which this flag had an official meaning, which is pretty tainted. If it had a wider official usage, that would be different.
It is certainly valid, has been since the 1860's its a historical symbol, or to be more accurate the best known of set of related historical symbols of specifically relating to eleven specific states of the US.
It is very clearly regional heritage.
For this reason it is discriminatory for anyone to automatically assume usage or self affiliation is related to racism or hate crime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: Next person to snarkily inform people they need to work on 'reading comprehension', say something along the lines of 'well at least be honest about X', call the entire other side of an argument bigots, or at least try and frame a statement in that direction while tip toeing on the edge of exactly what I just said, eats it. For at least a day. Stop it now
Strange you bring this up now rather than earlier.
There are those who want to label -
"All those who wear Confederate iconography are bigots."
And those who want to educate those who label -
"All those who assume those who wear Confederate iconography are bigots are themselves being bigoted and should stop if they claim to hold any moral high ground."
It makes logical sense that those who call out bigotry are provisionally against bigotry, and thus presumably correctable.
So pointing out their error by highlighting valid exception to their assumptions and thus the error in their assumptions is an act of recitude and not hatred.
Orlanth wrote: The Confederate flag however was a cultural symbol relating the the common ancestry of the descendants of the separatist sates. It can be taken in that context and it should be the assumed default context for flying the flag without good reason to suggest otherwise.
If this is in any way difficult to understand ask yourself why the 'sons of the south' rose up. Did the opinions on slavery differ by latitude? Not really, the geographic element was cultural. People on border states chose a side, often dividing families, those further north or south tended (with the usual caveat of personal exception) to stick with their lcal allegiance. The why may vary, but the choice was obviously regional
This muchis obvious, but at that point most thinking sadly stops. As the choice to serve the confederacy was geographic rather than doctrinal then the symbol is geographic also. Someonn a deep southern state, say Florida, who raise the Stars and Bars is raising a geographical cultural symbol, because that is what it was, first and foremost. History should understand that, finger pointers should also.
If however you insist on painting the Confederate flag as a doctrinal symbol then it would have had to have had a doctrinal core. For this to be true there would be no north vs south, but an ideological divide which woudn't follow geographic boundaries. History has never supported that. The American civil war was always seen as regional, but despite this consistency a consistent look at the Confederate iconography has not followed.
The stars and bars is a de facto regional heritage symbol, motives for raising it can of course vary and racists can and do use it. However it is illogical to assume racism is the root for doing so as the symbol has valid regional heritage connexion, and also because those wanting less bigotry should apply that measure to themselves and not prejudge. Especially not with that sort of heavy moral label.
Absolutely nothing you typed about the Confederate flag is true and I'm saying this as someone who actually has this as their heritage. Nothing. The modern usage of the flag is in direct correlation to suppression of the civil rights of blacks in the South (and elsewhere). The original uses of the flag were in support of an illegal secession and armed insurrection against the government of the United States, all things in direct violation to the Constitution. The lengths you go to dance around this are impressive though. This explains the flag today:
"It is no accident that Confederate symbols have been the mainstay of white supremacist organizations, from the Ku Klux Klan to the skinheads. They did not appropriate the Confederate battle flag simply because it was pretty. They picked it because it was the flag of a nation dedicated to their ideals: 'that the negro is not equal to the white man'. The Confederate flag, we are told, represents heritage, not hate. But why should we celebrate a heritage grounded in hate, a heritage whose self-avowed reason for existence was the exploitation and debasement of a sizable segment of its population?" -Gordon Rhea
It's been said (accurately, I might add) that the Union won the war, but the Confederacy won the narrative. You have completely embraced the Southern narrative of the war and Reconstruction all while completely ignoring the actual causes of secession (even at one point calling them "propaganda"). By your standards, no one at any age can judge the actions of the past, which is ludicrous. You've constructed this narrative that everyone who is rightly calling the Confederacy wrong is also in the same breath, calling the Union the unequivocal good guys. No one is saying that. It's been mentioned time again, the Northern states were not the bastion progressive civil rights for blacks; not by a long stretch. Yet, their emancipation of slaves occurred decades before it was forced in the South. The majority of Northerners still viewed blacks with disdain, yet public opinion was firmly against the continuation of chattel slavery; it was (and is) possible to be an avowed racist and still view the institution of slavery in disgust. You ignore this and instead trot out the idea that because the Union wasn't the gallant white knight of freedom and liberty, the wrongness of the cause of the Confederacy is diminished.
That's a dangerous view.
If you really want to understand the soul of the Confederacy and why moral people oppose the idea of Confederate emblems as "heritage," please refer this excerpt from this oft-ignored speech from Alexander Stephens mere weeks before the attack on Fort Sumter:
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.
Anyone Fascinated by the fact that companies are not selling the confederate flag even if it is on miniatures? Isn't that a bit far?
I understand what it has become is offensive, but if you remove it from everywhere people aren't just going to forget, its akin to censorship but a bit worse. As you can still buy a Nazi Third Reich Badge, and yet you can't buy a confederate flag...
A Confederate flag by itself used to stand for the south and its departure, As a privatized item anyone can display it is their right, but a governmental body cannot. The confederate flag now stands to many as a flag of racism, borne by the KKK.
To me it sounds more like someone is just hiding the truth from people. To me the flag itself really helps me point out people who don't know that much or are bigots. But If I see it on a model or in a history book, I would approach it very differently. And yet people are starting to ban them even on toys and game, it seems very much like what Germany did with the Third Reich and any iconography which is to censor it and ensure no one remembers it. Which really doesn't work nor does it remove the history that happened. Its still there. Though I do understand why it is removed, I ask the question of why in games and toys? Is the flag so offensive that it confers that even on images of the Civil War? Are we going to censor the flag whenever it is shown on television? Whats next? Who knows, for all I know it will end right here.
Turning on a blind eye on the past, from a country that is deeply rooted in the massacre of others such as the Native Americans is ironic and hilarious. We pride ourselves over the fact that we are getting rid of the Confederate flag a ym, yet we forget that the american symbol the flag is just a banner of terror to other countries, as many countries in eastern europe only looks at us with hate and fear. As do the Native Americans, the true americans who have not only been ignored by the USA, but have not been given their ancestral homes back. We americans pride ourselves over how we treat each other equally, yet we don't each year their lands grow smaller and smaller. Many native americans are jobless and are quite depressed. You would be too if you grew up in a land that is not abundant in resources. Yet here we are a hundred years after the trail of tears ultra senstive nation that says it is protecting the minorities and others and trying to prove to the world they care about their citizens, a publicity stunt nothing more.
The United States was built on the blood of innocents and those who are native to these lands. To say that the Confederate flag is offensive is minor compared to how offensive the star spangled banner is to the Native Americans, who only see us as mass perpetrators of Mass Genocide.
The problem being is that the more you wish to censor things the more likely that people will not forget but remember, and try to go against the government. The Confederate flag to many others is a sign of the Old South and in a way to the old ways, it is culturally significant to many, to others in the North it is still a symbol of slavery and racism. But so does the American Flag.
Further proving the world is never been black and white, it is always been shades of gray.
Asherian Command wrote: Anyone Fascinated by the fact that companies are not selling the confederate flag even if it is on miniatures? Isn't that a bit far?
I understand what it has become is offensive, but if you remove it from everywhere people aren't just going to forget, its akin to censorship but a bit worse. As you can still buy a Nazi Third Reich Badge, and yet I can't buy a confederate flag, isn't that both at the same time hilarious and a bit disturbing?
To me this shows me that people are more sensitive about racism and slavery, than mass extinction.
Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?
I'm sure the people who sell Nazi Third Reich Badge will start selling the klans flag as well, supply and demand and all that.
the Klans flag is just getting pushed back into the dark corners of the internet where it belongs, and not hung on capital buildings.
Asherian Command wrote: Anyone Fascinated by the fact that companies are not selling the confederate flag even if it is on miniatures? Isn't that a bit far?
I understand what it has become is offensive, but if you remove it from everywhere people aren't just going to forget, its akin to censorship but a bit worse. As you can still buy a Nazi Third Reich Badge, and yet I can't buy a confederate flag, isn't that both at the same time hilarious and a bit disturbing?
To me this shows me that people are more sensitive about racism and slavery, than mass extinction.
Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?
I'm sure the people who sell Nazi Third Reich Badge will start selling the klans flag as well, supply and demand and all that.
the Klans flag is just getting pushed back into the dark corners of the internet where it belongs, and not hung on capital buildings.
Except the problem is that is not what it is doing. It is just turning a blind eye and becoming very much like germany. Censoring the past to a fit a narrative. Do we know everyone who has the confederate flag is a bigot? This confederate flag includes toys and games that have a single mention of the confederate flag.
Isn't that stupid? I am not talking about the government building just the idea that censoring it because of the image of the flag apparently brings memories of racism, on say a model. Is it right to get rid of it because you simply disagree with it, or would rather us become like Germany. Ultra Sensitive and prone to censorship?
While the left and its media water carriers celebrate the purging of the Confederate battle flag from the public and private spheres, they’re hyping the decision of retailers to pull Confederate-themed merchandise. But maybe they should take a look at what other ideology-related swag these stores and websites are selling. Following the South Carolina church shooting, stores including Amazon, Walmart and eBay stopped selling Confederate flag merchandise. Media from USA Today to ABC covered the move as well as the three broadcast networks, with CBS’ Adriana Diaz recognizing the “pressure” that is “mounting in the business community” on June 24. In defense of the decision, Walmart spokesperson Brian Nick explained his company’s reasoning. "We never want to offend anyone with the products that we offer. We have taken steps to remove all items promoting the Confederate flag from our assortment – whether in our stores or on our web site," he told CNN. But the stores aren’t afraid of offending everyone. Amazon sells Swastika covers for Playstation 4, books denying the Holocaust and swastika-decorated knives and pendants. For Soviet Union fanatics, Amazon advertises hammer and sickle pins, aprons and baby bodysuits. Amazon has something for everyone, offering Satanic goat head pendants and “Hail Satan” wristbands. Joining Amazon, Walmart sells airplane models, complete with swastikas, and Soviet heavy tank kits. The chain giant also sells Soviet posters – from Soviet beverage ads to Soviet Boy Scout ads “calling all schoolchildren.” In addition, Walmart boasts a host of Che Guevara paraphernalia, the mass-murdering communist thug who happened to look good in a beret. Walmart sells a Guevara movie poster, an “urban watercolor” canvas and a print citing Guevara: “the true revolutionary is guided by feelings of love.” EBay offered concentration camp cash, a good luck swastika pin, a Soviet Union hammer sickle flag, Lenin and Stalin busts. Earlier: MRC's Special Report Better Off Red by Rich Noyes and Scott Whitlock explores the liberal media's blindness to the evils of communism. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2015/06/24/rebel-flag-gone-stores-nazi-soviet-paraphernalia-remain#sthash.PcRCw7uX.dpuf
It's just a flag. It doesn't make anybody be or do anything.
People behaved differently, had different standards, morals, beliefs and knowledge in different eras. The Confederate flag shouldn't be flown over state and federal buildings because it's not longer a flag that represents a state or the nation. Private citizens can fly whatever flags they want for any reason they want. The mere symbol itself holds no meaning beyond what an individual ascribes to it.
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't an evil bigotted racist tv show just because Bo and Luke painted the battle flag on the roof of their car.
If we're going to get outraged over flags that were flown by people whose beliefs and actions we now find unacceptable we need to be upset over most of the flags that exist.
Japan committed horrible racist genocidal atrocities against civilians during WWII and evil war crimes against POWs. Should I be offended by Japan's flag? Does anyone who chooses to wear or fly that flag automatically give his/her tacit approval to the crimes committed under the auspices of that flag?
Prestor Jon wrote: It's just a flag. It doesn't make anybody be or do anything.
People behaved differently, had different standards, morals, beliefs and knowledge in different eras. The Confederate flag shouldn't be flown over state and federal buildings because it's not longer a flag that represents a state or the nations. Private citizens can fly whatever flags they want for any reason they want. The mere symbol itself holds no meaning beyond what an individual ascribes to it.
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't an evil bigotted racist tv show just because Bo and Luke painted the battle flag on the roof of their car.
If we're going to get outraged over flags that were flown by people whose beliefs and actions we now find unacceptable we need to be upset over most of the flags that exist.
Japan committed horrible racist genocidal atrocities against civilians during WWII and evil war crimes against POWs. Should I be offended by Japan's flag? Does anyone who chooses to wear or fly that flag automatically give his/her tacit approval to the crimes committed under the auspices of that flag?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Absolutely nothing you typed about the Confederate flag is true and I'm saying this as someone who actually has this as their heritage. Nothing. The modern usage of the flag is in direct correlation to suppression of the civil rights of blacks in the South (and elsewhere). The original uses of the flag were in support of an illegal secession and armed insurrection against the government of the United States, all things in direct violation to the Constitution. The lengths you go to dance around this are impressive though.
Yes the star and bars may represent a historical inaccuracy, however that is not relevant to it remaining a real historical symbol. At least is accurate from the time, if mistranscribed.
Wile it may be a specific flag from the Confederacy and not the de facto flag of the confederacy of the time it is however the symbol of the Confederacy.
Anyone from history books and programs, to novels, to wargamers to popular culture uses the stars and bars as the cultural emblem.
This point was highighted earlier.
Having a technically inaccurate historical symbol int unique to this case, and doesn't invalidate it.
Let me show you perhaps the best known example of this related to flags:
You cant deny this is a historical icon about England.
However factually it has nothing to do with England, it was adopted for the purpose. St George never visited England. Ireland on the other hand uses the St Patrick flag with some historical logic to it.
Georgia has a far better claim to thSt George flag, but must use a bastardised version as a national flag, because it now and has for a long time meant England in international usage and St George is our adopted patron saint.
It would be futile to claim, no matter the inaccuracy, that the St George flag is not a symbol of England.
The 'stars and bars' are in the same position. Everything from the 80's TV serial North and South, to History channel to old paintings often show that flag to represent the Confederacy. It has sort of stuck.
Orlanth wrote: to History channel to old paintings often show that flag to represent the Confederacy. It has sort of stuck.
Well, the thing with that is, I've never seen a History channel anything about the ACW that wasn't talking about the soldiery. As it was the "battle standard" (and actually, to be technical, the white stars were the naval jack, not the battle standard) of the armies, it makes sense to use it when talking of military conflict. Same thing with paintings. If you're painting a group of grey uniformed soldiers, they are clearly confederates, and they typically marched under the Southern Cross flags.
Sure, if we're talking "daily southern life" or "the CSA government" then yeah, using the battle standard or naval jack doesn't really make all that much sense.
Asherian Command wrote: Anyone Fascinated by the fact that companies are not selling the confederate flag even if it is on miniatures? Isn't that a bit far?
I understand what it has become is offensive, but if you remove it from everywhere people aren't just going to forget, its akin to censorship but a bit worse. As you can still buy a Nazi Third Reich Badge, and yet I can't buy a confederate flag, isn't that both at the same time hilarious and a bit disturbing?
To me this shows me that people are more sensitive about racism and slavery, than mass extinction.
Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?
I'm sure the people who sell Nazi Third Reich Badge will start selling the klans flag as well, supply and demand and all that.
the Klans flag is just getting pushed back into the dark corners of the internet where it belongs, and not hung on capital buildings.
Except the problem is that is not what it is doing. It is just turning a blind eye and becoming very much like germany. Censoring the past to a fit a narrative. Do we know everyone who has the confederate flag is a bigot? This confederate flag includes toys and games that have a single mention of the confederate flag.
Isn't that stupid? I am not talking about the government building just the idea that censoring it because of the image of the flag apparently brings memories of racism, on say a model. Is it right to get rid of it because you simply disagree with it, or would rather us become like Germany. Ultra Sensitive and prone to censorship?
Asking for the klans flag to no longer be flown in public places is not censoring the past. The only people I see trying to censor the past are those who want the klans flag to stay on public buildings. How is asking for the klans flag to not fly over SC censoring the past? that flag has nothing to do with SC, it's not the american flag, it's not their state flag, why is it there? how is removing the flag of a terrorist nation censoring the past? What is this southern heritage that the south is so proud of and that the klan flag so well represents? Why when those defending the klans flag get asked about it's history they are so quick to change the topic off from slavery. Or pretend that the war had nothing at all to do with slavery? is that not censoring the past and rewriting it?
Those asking for it's removal want the past to stay in the past, as the battle flag of north virginia. Not in it's current use of the flag of the KKK flown on state & federal grounds. That's not censoring the past.
What companies sell is up to them, Free market and all that. But you can't use ebay as an example of it, we know how ebay works and it's not them selling stuff.
my group plays at a public library and you should see the stink eye people give when doing historical naval battles with the bismark, yet no one bats an eye about any of the confederate flags. No one can stop you from playing with models that are historically accurate, but then again in some public area's you might get asked nicely not to.
How can you claim censorship though, when you have the entire history of the war and statement from those who started it easily available on the internet. I don't think anyone is going to forget that the south was built on slavery, and that they loved slavery so much they tried to form their own nation so they could enshrine owning slaves into their constitution. Like texas put it:
maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
They wanted their slaves and the ability to own slaves til the end of time. Just like Texas though, always thinking big.
Stop calling the the confederate flag "stars and bars".
It is the southern cross. Stars and bars is a totally different flag which looks nothing like the confederate battle flag with the southern cross on it.
Appropriating historical references of the "stars and bars" to the "southern cross" is inaccurate and is totally invalid for discussing the racial overtones of the southern cross.
Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?
I don't think you could ever get a nazi flag or something similar on Amazon,
However, I do know that you CAN buy scale models that come with a swastika decal, it's just that none of the item pictures on the amazon listing show the swastika itself. I know this because I just looked up a couple of scale model kits that I've built, and know the decal sheets came with the tail swastika on them.
I think that what will end up having to happen is that, let's say hypothetically Games Workshop got into historicals again, and offered a 28mm "CSA infantry" box for this hypothetical wargame. In order for them to sell on amazon, they'd have to picture the box in such a way that the battle standard isn't visible (so, no flag bearer on the box art)
swastikas was actually a symbol of good luck sad it got abused :(.
On topic who cares it is a flag and history will be forgot if people just learn to shut up about it. Give it 1 or 2 more generations then they will throw it out like everything else that gets old lol. Ask any kid born after 2000 they treat hitler the same way they treat alexander the great. A guy from the past who cares.
Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?
I don't think you could ever get a nazi flag or something similar on Amazon,
However, I do know that you CAN buy scale models that come with a swastika decal, it's just that none of the item pictures on the amazon listing show the swastika itself. I know this because I just looked up a couple of scale model kits that I've built, and know the decal sheets came with the tail swastika on them.
I think that what will end up having to happen is that, let's say hypothetically Games Workshop got into historicals again, and offered a 28mm "CSA infantry" box for this hypothetical wargame. In order for them to sell on amazon, they'd have to picture the box in such a way that the battle standard isn't visible (so, no flag bearer on the box art)
I really doubt the GW scenario, as far as I know, no one is calling to ban the flag outright. It was asked to be taken off from state buildings, then some retailers decided to stop selling it or making it. That's not banning the flag, that's just public opinion and the free market at work.
I really doubt the GW scenario, as far as I know, no one is calling to ban the flag outright. It was asked to be taken off from state buildings, then some retailers decided to stop selling it or making it. That's not banning the flag, that's just public opinion and the free market at work.
Well, what I'm seeing when I look on there currently, is that you can still buy a Panzer IV model, a Messerschmitt 109 model, the Bismarck model, etc.... all of which come with Nazi Iconography in the kits. The thing all of them have though, is that none of them have a group of photos of the product showing the swastika flag.
That's why I would imagine any gaming company would either have to change their item picture for Amazon, not have a picture, or make a good case to amazon why their item doesn't fit the company's wish to not sell confederate iconography holding items.
Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?
I don't think you could ever get a nazi flag or something similar on Amazon,
However, I do know that you CAN buy scale models that come with a swastika decal, it's just that none of the item pictures on the amazon listing show the swastika itself. I know this because I just looked up a couple of scale model kits that I've built, and know the decal sheets came with the tail swastika on them.
I think that what will end up having to happen is that, let's say hypothetically Games Workshop got into historicals again, and offered a 28mm "CSA infantry" box for this hypothetical wargame. In order for them to sell on amazon, they'd have to picture the box in such a way that the battle standard isn't visible (so, no flag bearer on the box art)
You are so SO wrong lol. Just did a quick search on Amazon now- they sell 5'x3' flags lol
I think what a lot of people are forgetting, and quite frankly what is being lost in this thread, how African Americans feel about their government endorsing the waiving of a flag that symbolizes so much hurt and pain for their ancestors.
If Charleston had a flag pole with the Nazi flag waiving, and the psycho had entered a synoguage and murdered 9 Jewish people, there would be just as much"debate" over the appropriateness of the flag being waived on state or government buildings.
This is about doing what is decent, and the right thing. It is not right for a government in the USA to waive that flag, as a celebration of bad choices, and a very dark time in our history. Museums, and classrooms, and historical events are different.
On another note,I'm also an avid historical modeller, and I am interested in the 1st Fighter Group of the USA. This group traces it's origins back to the 94th Fighter squadron, and the Lafayette Esquadrille of WW1.
One of the most famous pilots of the Lafeyette Esquadrille, and the the 94th Fighter squadron was Raoul Luftberry, and he decorated his plane with a swastika (before joining the 94th), which he had learned was a symbol of good luck during his travels in India. This was a few years before the NAZIS used the symbol for a very different purpose.
See link for picture of completed SPAD VII, with the swastika.
My point, is that you can still purchase decals of swastikas, to be used for modelling purposes, even though you can't buy them from German manufacturers such as Revell, but there is a market for historically accurate models, and there are suppliers that will supply these items.
Same thing will be for the confederate battle flag. If you want to do a historically accurate confederate battle diorama, you can purchases a set of perrry miniatures confederate infantry, and use their decals or buy your own somewhere else.
If the Confederate flag is finally going to be consigned to museums as an ugly symbol of racism, what about the beloved film offering the most iconic glimpse of that flag in American culture? I’m talking, of course, about “Gone with the Wind,’’ which won a then-record eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture of 1939, and still ranks as the all-time North American box-office champ with $1.6 billion worth of tickets sold here when adjusted for inflation.
True, “Gone with the Wind’’ isn’t as blatantly and virulently racist as D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,’’ which was considered one of the greatest American movies as late as the early 1960s, but is now rarely screened, even in museums. The more subtle racism of “Gone with the Wind’’ is in some ways more insidious, going to great lengths to enshrine the myth that the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery — an institution the film unabashedly romanticizes. When I reviewed the graphically honest “12 Years a Slave’’ in 2013, I noted, “It will be impossible to ever look at ‘Gone with the Wind’ the same way.’’ Apparently someone at the motion picture academy — possibly president Cheryl Boone Isaacs, who is African-American — agrees. “The Wizard of Oz’’ got a special 75th anniversary tribute at the same Oscar ceremony where “12 Years’’ won Best Picture. “Gone with the Wind,’’ which beat “The Wizard of Oz’’ for Best Picture, barely rated a mention during an Oscar segment on 1939 movies. Based on a best seller by die-hard Southerner Margaret Mitchell, “Gone with the Wind’’ buys heavily into the idea that the Civil War was a noble lost cause and casts Yankees and Yankee sympathizers as the villains, both during the war and during Reconstruction. Producer David O. Selznick, a liberal Jew, did temper Mitchell’s vision somewhat, banning the N-word but allowing a lot of references to “darkies.’’ There is no direct reference in the film to the Ku Klux Klan, but it’s still pretty clear that the unseen “political meeting’’ that Rhett and Ashley attend after the attack on Scarlett involves the activities of vigilantes in white sheets. Warner Bros., which has owned “GWTW’’ since 1996, resisted any analysis of the film’s problematic racial politics until a 26-minute featurette was included with last year’s Blu-ray set. In it, black and white scholars discuss the film’s embrace of the view propagated by (mostly Southern) post-Civil War historians that slavery wasn’t such a bad thing.
We now know better, even if there are many other great things about “GWTW’’ — among them its sweep, its gorgeous Technicolor photography and its unforgettable performances by Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable and the film’s emotional center, Hattie McDaniel, the first black performer to win an Oscar as the subversive Mammy.
But what does it say about us as a nation if we continue to embrace a movie that, in the final analysis, stands for many of the same things as the Confederate flag that flutters so dramatically over the dead and wounded soldiers at the Atlanta train station just before the “GWTW’’ intermission? Warner Bros. just stopped licensing another of pop culture’s most visible uses of the Confederate flag — toy replicas of the General Lee, an orange Dodge Charger from “The Dukes of Hazzard’’ — as retailers like Amazon and Walmart have finally backed away from selling merchandise with that racist symbol. That studio sent “Gone with the Wind’’ back into theaters for its 75th anniversary in partnership with its sister company Turner Classic Movies in 2014, but I have a feeling the movie’s days as a cash cow are numbered. It’s showing on July 4 at the Museum of Modern Art as part of the museum’s salute to the 100th anniversary of Technicolor — and maybe that’s where this much-loved but undeniably racist artifact really belongs.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's just a flag. It doesn't make anybody be or do anything.
People behaved differently, had different standards, morals, beliefs and knowledge in different eras. The Confederate flag shouldn't be flown over state and federal buildings because it's not longer a flag that represents a state or the nation. Private citizens can fly whatever flags they want for any reason they want. The mere symbol itself holds no meaning beyond what an individual ascribes to it.
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't an evil bigotted racist tv show just because Bo and Luke painted the battle flag on the roof of their car.
If we're going to get outraged over flags that were flown by people whose beliefs and actions we now find unacceptable we need to be upset over most of the flags that exist.
Japan committed horrible racist genocidal atrocities against civilians during WWII and evil war crimes against POWs. Should I be offended by Japan's flag? Does anyone who chooses to wear or fly that flag automatically give his/her tacit approval to the crimes committed under the auspices of that flag?
A lot of Koreans and Chinese are offended by the Japanese flag, especially the rising sun version. Similar to the CSA flag it has got an association with right wing extremist nationalists.
If you've been watching the news recently, you'll know of the huge debate in the U.S over the role of the Confederate flag in contemporary America. Many see it as a reminder of the many pre-Civil War injustices while others see it simply as a way to honor the soldiers who died for the Confederacy. Many large US companies, like Walmart and Amazon, have already banned the sale of any Confederate flag merchandise as a reaction to the recent events. Now, it appears that Apple has decided to join them by pulling many Civil War wargames from the App Store. As of the writing of this story, games like Ultimate General: Gettysburg and all the Hunted Cow Civil War games are nowhere to be found. Apple is famous for reaching for the axe rather than the scalpel when it comes to political issues (like rejecting Hunted Cow's Tank Battle 1942 for depicting Germans and Russians as enemies), so this move doesn't come as a great surprise.
Apple's Tim Cook has recently spoke against displaying the Confederate flag, so I suppose this development was to be expected. However, censoring historical games (if that is indeed the reason why the game's have been pulled) is always very tricky because those games don't glorify or promote a cause but, rather, represent historical events using the symbols and insignia of the period. However, I can also see the political and social pressure mounting at the moment, which makes pulling the games the "safest" action for Apple. What do you think? If Apple has indeed pulled the games for displaying the Confederate flag, is Apple's action justified, or was there another way to eradicate racism and remove the symbols and words that feed it, as Tim Cook put it?
Update: It's looking like Apple has pulled everything from the App Store that features a Confederate flag, regardless of context. The reasoning Apple is sending developers is "...because it includes images of the confederate flag used in offensive and mean-spirited ways." We just spoke with Andrew from HexWar Games, who have released many historical strategy games. He insists, "We're in no way sympathetic to the use of the flag in an offensive way, we used it purely because historically that was the flag that was used at the time."
HexWar Games plans on attempting to re-submit their games using the lesser-known 1861 version of the Confederate flag. But, who knows if that will even be approved. No one is sure yet if Apple is banning all mention of the Confederacy, or just the specific image of the flag which has since become such a hot button issue in the USA.
Update 2: We just received a statement from Maxim Zasov of Game Labs, the developers of Ultimate General: Gettysburg. It is as follows:
We accept Apple's decision and understand that this is a sensitive issue for the American Nation. We wanted our game to be the most accurate, historical, playable reference of the Battle of Gettysburg. All historical commanders, unit composition and weaponry, key geographical locations to the smallest streams or farms are recreated in our game's battlefield.
We receive a lot of letters of gratitude from American teachers who use our game in history curriculum to let kids experience one of the most important battles in American history from the Commander's perspective.
Spielberg’s "Schindler's List" did not try to amend his movie to look more comfortable. The historical "Gettysburg" movie (1993) is still on iTunes. We believe that all historical art forms: books, movies, or games such as ours, help to learn and understand history, depicting events as they were. True stories are more important to us than money.
Therefore we are not going to amend the game's content and Ultimate General: Gettysburg will no longer be available on AppStore. We really hope that Apple’s decision will achieve the desired results. We can’t change history, but we can change the future.
Ultimate General: Gettysburg wasn't alone in focusing on tasteful, historical accuracy. The vast majority of the Civil War strategy games I've played on my iPad put massive amounts of emphasis on focusing on the historical significance of the battles, units, locations, and generals included. We've also heard that these types of games have been used as teaching tools, making their removal from the App Store feel that much more reactionary.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's just a flag. It doesn't make anybody be or do anything.
People behaved differently, had different standards, morals, beliefs and knowledge in different eras. The Confederate flag shouldn't be flown over state and federal buildings because it's not longer a flag that represents a state or the nation. Private citizens can fly whatever flags they want for any reason they want. The mere symbol itself holds no meaning beyond what an individual ascribes to it.
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't an evil bigotted racist tv show just because Bo and Luke painted the battle flag on the roof of their car.
If we're going to get outraged over flags that were flown by people whose beliefs and actions we now find unacceptable we need to be upset over most of the flags that exist.
Japan committed horrible racist genocidal atrocities against civilians during WWII and evil war crimes against POWs. Should I be offended by Japan's flag? Does anyone who chooses to wear or fly that flag automatically give his/her tacit approval to the crimes committed under the auspices of that flag?
A lot of Koreans and Chinese are offended by the Japanese flag, especially the rising sun version. Similar to the CSA flag it has got an association with right wing extremist nationalists.
That's my point, most flags can be associated with horrors committed against others and have a group or groups of people who despise it or are offended by it. Yet, they're still just symbols on cloth, they hold no sway over people and don't need to be censored. There's no need to be myopic and get outraged over one particular flag while ignoring all the others.
If you've been watching the news recently, you'll know of the huge debate in the U.S over the role of the Confederate flag in contemporary America. Many see it as a reminder of the many pre-Civil War injustices while others see it simply as a way to honor the soldiers who died for the Confederacy. Many large US companies, like Walmart and Amazon, have already banned the sale of any Confederate flag merchandise as a reaction to the recent events. Now, it appears that Apple has decided to join them by pulling many Civil War wargames from the App Store. As of the writing of this story, games like Ultimate General: Gettysburg and all the Hunted Cow Civil War games are nowhere to be found. Apple is famous for reaching for the axe rather than the scalpel when it comes to political issues (like rejecting Hunted Cow's Tank Battle 1942 for depicting Germans and Russians as enemies), so this move doesn't come as a great surprise.
Apple's Tim Cook has recently spoke against displaying the Confederate flag, so I suppose this development was to be expected. However, censoring historical games (if that is indeed the reason why the game's have been pulled) is always very tricky because those games don't glorify or promote a cause but, rather, represent historical events using the symbols and insignia of the period. However, I can also see the political and social pressure mounting at the moment, which makes pulling the games the "safest" action for Apple. What do you think? If Apple has indeed pulled the games for displaying the Confederate flag, is Apple's action justified, or was there another way to eradicate racism and remove the symbols and words that feed it, as Tim Cook put it?
Update: It's looking like Apple has pulled everything from the App Store that features a Confederate flag, regardless of context. The reasoning Apple is sending developers is "...because it includes images of the confederate flag used in offensive and mean-spirited ways." We just spoke with Andrew from HexWar Games, who have released many historical strategy games. He insists, "We're in no way sympathetic to the use of the flag in an offensive way, we used it purely because historically that was the flag that was used at the time."
HexWar Games plans on attempting to re-submit their games using the lesser-known 1861 version of the Confederate flag. But, who knows if that will even be approved. No one is sure yet if Apple is banning all mention of the Confederacy, or just the specific image of the flag which has since become such a hot button issue in the USA.
Update 2: We just received a statement from Maxim Zasov of Game Labs, the developers of Ultimate General: Gettysburg. It is as follows:
We accept Apple's decision and understand that this is a sensitive issue for the American Nation. We wanted our game to be the most accurate, historical, playable reference of the Battle of Gettysburg. All historical commanders, unit composition and weaponry, key geographical locations to the smallest streams or farms are recreated in our game's battlefield.
We receive a lot of letters of gratitude from American teachers who use our game in history curriculum to let kids experience one of the most important battles in American history from the Commander's perspective.
Spielberg’s "Schindler's List" did not try to amend his movie to look more comfortable. The historical "Gettysburg" movie (1993) is still on iTunes. We believe that all historical art forms: books, movies, or games such as ours, help to learn and understand history, depicting events as they were. True stories are more important to us than money.
Therefore we are not going to amend the game's content and Ultimate General: Gettysburg will no longer be available on AppStore. We really hope that Apple’s decision will achieve the desired results. We can’t change history, but we can change the future.
Ultimate General: Gettysburg wasn't alone in focusing on tasteful, historical accuracy. The vast majority of the Civil War strategy games I've played on my iPad put massive amounts of emphasis on focusing on the historical significance of the battles, units, locations, and generals included. We've also heard that these types of games have been used as teaching tools, making their removal from the App Store feel that much more reactionary.
I saw that. I looked up one or two of the games, they really are ACW civil war battle games. One just had rebel/union flags representing the different units so you can tell who they were. Amazingly stupid.
If you've been watching the news recently, you'll know of the huge debate in the U.S over the role of the Confederate flag in contemporary America. Many see it as a reminder of the many pre-Civil War injustices while others see it simply as a way to honor the soldiers who died for the Confederacy. Many large US companies, like Walmart and Amazon, have already banned the sale of any Confederate flag merchandise as a reaction to the recent events. Now, it appears that Apple has decided to join them by pulling many Civil War wargames from the App Store. As of the writing of this story, games like Ultimate General: Gettysburg and all the Hunted Cow Civil War games are nowhere to be found. Apple is famous for reaching for the axe rather than the scalpel when it comes to political issues (like rejecting Hunted Cow's Tank Battle 1942 for depicting Germans and Russians as enemies), so this move doesn't come as a great surprise.
Apple's Tim Cook has recently spoke against displaying the Confederate flag, so I suppose this development was to be expected. However, censoring historical games (if that is indeed the reason why the game's have been pulled) is always very tricky because those games don't glorify or promote a cause but, rather, represent historical events using the symbols and insignia of the period. However, I can also see the political and social pressure mounting at the moment, which makes pulling the games the "safest" action for Apple. What do you think? If Apple has indeed pulled the games for displaying the Confederate flag, is Apple's action justified, or was there another way to eradicate racism and remove the symbols and words that feed it, as Tim Cook put it?
Update: It's looking like Apple has pulled everything from the App Store that features a Confederate flag, regardless of context. The reasoning Apple is sending developers is "...because it includes images of the confederate flag used in offensive and mean-spirited ways." We just spoke with Andrew from HexWar Games, who have released many historical strategy games. He insists, "We're in no way sympathetic to the use of the flag in an offensive way, we used it purely because historically that was the flag that was used at the time."
HexWar Games plans on attempting to re-submit their games using the lesser-known 1861 version of the Confederate flag. But, who knows if that will even be approved. No one is sure yet if Apple is banning all mention of the Confederacy, or just the specific image of the flag which has since become such a hot button issue in the USA.
Update 2: We just received a statement from Maxim Zasov of Game Labs, the developers of Ultimate General: Gettysburg. It is as follows:
We accept Apple's decision and understand that this is a sensitive issue for the American Nation. We wanted our game to be the most accurate, historical, playable reference of the Battle of Gettysburg. All historical commanders, unit composition and weaponry, key geographical locations to the smallest streams or farms are recreated in our game's battlefield.
We receive a lot of letters of gratitude from American teachers who use our game in history curriculum to let kids experience one of the most important battles in American history from the Commander's perspective.
Spielberg’s "Schindler's List" did not try to amend his movie to look more comfortable. The historical "Gettysburg" movie (1993) is still on iTunes. We believe that all historical art forms: books, movies, or games such as ours, help to learn and understand history, depicting events as they were. True stories are more important to us than money.
Therefore we are not going to amend the game's content and Ultimate General: Gettysburg will no longer be available on AppStore. We really hope that Apple’s decision will achieve the desired results. We can’t change history, but we can change the future.
Ultimate General: Gettysburg wasn't alone in focusing on tasteful, historical accuracy. The vast majority of the Civil War strategy games I've played on my iPad put massive amounts of emphasis on focusing on the historical significance of the battles, units, locations, and generals included. We've also heard that these types of games have been used as teaching tools, making their removal from the App Store feel that much more reactionary.
I saw that. I looked up one or two of the games, they really are ACW civil war battle games. One just had rebel/union flags representing the different units so you can tell who they were. Amazingly stupid.
And I fear this will be the norm. As the mob grows in power and can point to companies willingly pulling products like this, they will force more and more companies to do the same.
Never mind, that would be more of the slippery slope fallacy I got accused of a few pages back. It isn't like the Gov't made Apple, or Amazon, or WalMart do these things.
nkelsch wrote: Stop calling the the confederate flag "stars and bars".
It is the southern cross. Stars and bars is a totally different flag which looks nothing like the confederate battle flag with the southern cross on it.
Appropriating historical references of the "stars and bars" to the "southern cross" is inaccurate and is totally invalid for discussing the racial overtones of the southern cross.
I was referring to the stars and bars, as was the thread for the most part, we are right to do so.
- It is a genuine Confederate flag.
- It is the most widely known Confederate flag.
- It is a valid symbol of the Confederacy.
- It is the flag most often seen in popular culture and modern culture relating to states that once made up the Confederacy.
- It is the flag highlighted in current press controversy.
- It was not the formal national flag of the Confederate States of America.
Manchu wrote: The battle flag is commonly mistakenly referred to as the "stars and bars." Just because the mistake is common doesn't mean it's not a mistake.
But it's a mistake that is done so often that it's basically become the "truth", in much the same way that people throw out the terms "liberal" and "conservative" when they really mean "progressive liberal" and "classical liberal" for the people being talked about.
Manchu wrote: The battle flag is commonly mistakenly referred to as the "stars and bars." Just because the mistake is common doesn't mean it's not a mistake.
1. Philosophically, is it a mistake then? If everyone refers to facial tissue as kleenex, doesn't it (as courts have ruled) become reasonably accepted language? EDIT: Ensis beat me to it. 2. less philosophically people getting on their horse about it are more than welcome to tell them that. Reminder, this is not a crowd that takes criticism...well...
Manchu wrote: The battle flag is commonly mistakenly referred to as the "stars and bars." Just because the mistake is common doesn't mean it's not a mistake.
Actually not.
Flags are common iconography, which relates directly to public recognition. The 'stars and bars' IS the proper Confederate flag as it is what is recognised as the Confederate flag, flags are about common recognition, and in that context the inaccuracy is reversed.
Let me give you another example.
What flag is this.
Spoiler:
If you said Union Flag you are right. If you said Union Jack you are technically wrong, a jack is a square flag. However Union Jack is an acceptable colloquial name and has become part of the name rather than a factual descriptor of the object. So it is not improper to refer to the Union Flag as the Union Jack flag.
Flags are heraldry, which is entirely related to symbols and recognition of symbols.
As public perception is key to the subject matter, public perception affects the validity of a symbolt, even when technically incorrect.
2. less philosophically people getting on their horse about it are more than welcome to tell them that. Reminder, this is not a crowd that takes criticism...well...
Remember, THESE are the people you're dealing with:
Manchu wrote: The battle flag is commonly mistakenly referred to as the "stars and bars." Just because the mistake is common doesn't mean it's not a mistake.
1. Philosophically, is it a mistake then? If everyone refers to facial tissue as kleenex, doesn't it (as courts have ruled) become reasonably accepted language? EDIT: Ensis beat me to it.
2. less philosophically people getting on their horse about it are more than welcome to tell them that. Reminder, this is not a crowd that takes criticism...well...
From Frazzie's observations it is clearly a cultural issue in Texas; and why not, it is part of their heritage.
I think you mean, linguistically. But we are talking about history, right? There are two questions: (1) what did the flag mean in the past? and (2) what does the flag mean in the present? These days, people use the term "stars and bars" to refer to the battle flag, especially in the context of its current significance as a symbol of twentieth-century white supremacy. The historical "stars and bars" has nothing to do with that, although it is certainly a symbol of pro-slavery secessionists. The main problem this reveals is ahistorical thinking. A lot of people assume racism in 1860 and racism in 1960 and racism in 2015 are all the same. This ahistorical outlook is common on all sides of the debate. For example, some people claim that institutional racism no longer exists in the USA because slavery and de jure segregation are no more. In a less important but certainly irritating example, Apple decided to purge any visual reference to the battle flag because it cannot distinguish contexts (or believes this is too expensive). Ahistorical thinking inevitably leads to stupid conclusions and bad practices. In order to avoid being morons, we should take the time and effort to be historically aware.
Frazzled wrote: Reminder, this is not a crowd that takes criticism...well...
Guess this is only a concern for those who choose to associate with redneck racists.
Manchu wrote: The battle flag is commonly mistakenly referred to as the "stars and bars." Just because the mistake is common doesn't mean it's not a mistake.
Actually not.
Actually yes. A tu quoque argument about making similar mistakes doesn't change that.
nkelsch wrote: Stop calling the the confederate flag "stars and bars".
It is the southern cross. Stars and bars is a totally different flag which looks nothing like the confederate battle flag with the southern cross on it.
Appropriating historical references of the "stars and bars" to the "southern cross" is inaccurate and is totally invalid for discussing the racial overtones of the southern cross.
I was referring to the stars and bars, as was the thread for the most part, we are right to do so.
- It is a genuine Confederate flag.
- It is the most widely known Confederate flag.
- It is a valid symbol of the Confederacy.
- It is the flag most often seen in popular culture and modern culture relating to states that once made up the Confederacy.
- It is the flag highlighted in current press controversy.
- It was not the formal national flag of the Confederate States of America.
- It is the emblem of the KKK
Fixed it for you.
After the war ended, the symbol became a source of Southern pride and heritage, as well as a remembrance of Confederate soldiers who died in battle. But as racism and segregation gripped the nation in the century following, it became a divisive and violent emblem of the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacist groups. It was also the symbol of the States' Rights Democratic Party, or "Dixiecrats," that formed in 1948 to oppose civil-rights platforms of the Democratic Party.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh I get it now, southern pride really just means a proud democrat
You aren't me so you can get away with that. Fixed it for your comments can have a surprising reaction from mods.
To refix it back, if I dare.
- It's hijacked by the KKK.
It's not even an extreme example of hijacking a prior cultural symbol. The swastika is a better example, its actually a Hindu peace sign, then the Nazis got hold of it..
Manchu wrote: The battle flag is commonly mistakenly referred to as the "stars and bars." Just because the mistake is common doesn't mean it's not a mistake.
But it's a mistake that is done so often that it's basically become the "truth", in much the same way that people throw out the terms "liberal" and "conservative" when they really mean "progressive liberal" and "classical liberal" for the people being talked about.
No different than saying "please xerox those reports for me".
To the extent that the battle flag symbolizes "Southern" (which Southerners?) "pride" (in what accomplishment?), it equally symbolizes resentment -- resentment of military defeat, political irrelevance, economic depression, and moral condescension. To this day, the South remains the butt of innumerable jokes. No doubt, in the minds of many the battle flag is a big middle finger to "those damn Yankees" making the jokes. I'm not sure that constitutes pride, except in the sense of sin, and I'm totally at a loss as to how it is a matter of heritage other than a heritage of being angry losers. So even if we could disregard the racist meaning the battle flag has acquired, it would still just be a symbol of resentment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: I bothered to post an explaination, you just denied.
I explained that your argument was premised on a tu quoque fallacy. Did you expect me to also teach you what that means?
You aren't me so you can get away with that. Fixed it for your comments can have a surprising reaction from mods.
To refix it back, if I dare.
- It's hijacked by the KKK.
It's not even an extreme example of hijacking a prior cultural symbol. The swastika is a better example, its actually a Hindu peace sign, then the Nazis got hold of it..
Exactly, show anyone the swastika and ask them what it means? hindu peace or nazi?
Just like the Klans flag, it no longer means what it did in the past, 50 yearsish ago it became the Klans flag and a symbol of racism.
generalgrog wrote: So I think I have come full circle on this issue. I understand why, and I sympathize as to why southerners don't think it's an issue. In fact growing up in the south, watching dukes of hazard, and wearing t-shirts with the flag, I never considered it hateful, or even a problem. In fact if you didn't like it, too bad... I still don't consider it hateful, but I do think it's inconsiderate, not as bad as Nazi flag, but almost.
I mean the Nazi flag flown, even for the best intentions(if that were even possible), is still a Nazi flag.
I am the point that the confederate flag not be flown on state or US government property, and belongs in a museum.
If people want to fly it at their homes, that's their right, but take it down from public buildings. It represents too much hurt for minorities, and especially African American descendants of slaves.
What say Dakka?
GG
You realize that it flew over a monument to the Confederate war dead, right? That is a pretty appropriate place for it. What other flag are you going to fly there, the banner of the country that killed all of them? That would be like flying a Mexican flag over the Alamo. Flying an American flag over a monument dedicated to the men who died resisting America's invasion of their country is pretty gauche, in my opinion.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's just a flag. It doesn't make anybody be or do anything.
People behaved differently, had different standards, morals, beliefs and knowledge in different eras. The Confederate flag shouldn't be flown over state and federal buildings because it's not longer a flag that represents a state or the nation. Private citizens can fly whatever flags they want for any reason they want. The mere symbol itself holds no meaning beyond what an individual ascribes to it.
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't an evil bigotted racist tv show just because Bo and Luke painted the battle flag on the roof of their car.
If we're going to get outraged over flags that were flown by people whose beliefs and actions we now find unacceptable we need to be upset over most of the flags that exist.
Japan committed horrible racist genocidal atrocities against civilians during WWII and evil war crimes against POWs. Should I be offended by Japan's flag? Does anyone who chooses to wear or fly that flag automatically give his/her tacit approval to the crimes committed under the auspices of that flag?
A lot of Koreans and Chinese are offended by the Japanese flag, especially the rising sun version. Similar to the CSA flag it has got an association with right wing extremist nationalists.
That's my point, most flags can be associated with horrors committed against others and have a group or groups of people who despise it or are offended by it. Yet, they're still just symbols on cloth, they hold no sway over people and don't need to be censored. There's no need to be myopic and get outraged over one particular flag while ignoring all the others.
I understand your point, however the thing is a lot of people genuinely for good historical reasons find the CSA flag disturbing and offensive. If you want them to change their minds it will take a lot more effort than just saying they ought not to be myopic.
An African-American who is upset by the CSA flag doesn't have to give a feth about the Japanese IN battle flag to legitimately be upset about the CSA flag. It would be a bit silly to try to make things like that a condition of social intercourse.
Exactly, show anyone the swastika and ask them what it means? hindu peace or nazi?
That greatly depends on the person's education level, honestly.
Because for myself, and many people here who have some higher education, the orientation of the swastika is going to play a role in how I personally answer that question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: Quotes from William T. Thompson who designed the flag
Given that I'm not really sure one can say that the flag has "acquired" a racist meaning.
Can you provide a url link to the actual website you got those from?? It may come in handy at a later date
reds8n wrote: Given that I'm not really sure one can say that the flag has "acquired" a racist meaning.
It has acquired a racist meaning only in the sense that the kind or racism it represents has changed considerably over the years. Yes, it has always stood for white supremacy. But being racist in a society where racism is not just a given truth but probably the central facet of daily life in terms of popular culture is very different from being a racist in a society where racists constantly proclaim that racism is no longer a problem and this flag isn't a racist symbol.
reds8n wrote: Given that I'm not really sure one can say that the flag has "acquired" a racist meaning.
In 150 years, it's acquired new meanings and associations as well that are completely separate from the original intent. I think it's acquired cultural significance which is much greater than the "white supremacy" everyone attached to it.
This flag isn't alone either.. A great example of this is how the swastika acquired new meaning following WW2. In India, it has a completely different context which is MUCH older than Nazi Germany. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29644591
The flag isn't hateful and neither are the people who are flying it for cultural reasons. Even if people are intending to be hateful, who cares? People should be free to be dumb.
Orlanth wrote: I bothered to post an explaination, you just denied.
I explained that your argument was premised on a tu quoque fallacy. Did you expect me to also teach you what that means?
No I expect you to realise why I said that wasn't relevant.
Flags are about common perception, I gave two examples of that, BOTH VALID.
You flatly assumed I used one to validate the other, I validated both.
I posted why and was thorough in my argument by giving a separate example, explaining that one in separation.
Reading the post properly would have pointed that out to you.
Meanwhile I am still waiting for you to make a contribution rather than throw in 'tu quoque' simply because I added a separate supporting example.
To help you think. Here is the argument again
- Flags are common iconography.
- The understanding that iconography can evolve.
Can I give you yet another valid example.
The word gay has evolved to change from 'happy' to 'homosexual'. You could say that it is incorrect to call homosexuals gays, its easier to accept that the culture changes.
Culture evolves, cultural perceptions evolve, this is not invalidated because its a living cultural process.
The stars and bars evolved from its historical position as a battle flag of one of the Confederate states into the prime icon of the Confederacy. A dry observation that the flag has separate roots is not relevant, the iconography evolved in living culture. The Confederacy is gone, but the descendant culture is not, people in the Southern States see it as their heritage.
It was also hijacked by some extremists, but that is a separate issue, and thankfully level heads are winning against those who would flatly claim that the extremists own the icon.
History is full of icons, and so many of those icons evolve over time. As part of a living culture even a non linear descendant one they have living value. Good example there is classicism, basing a culture on Greek or Roman influence.
If I was to show you classical art, ie intentionally based on classical example, which the artists got wrong and was a faithful reproduction of Greek or Roman art does it lose its credential as classical art?
By your logic it would as it would not be historically correct. However classicism is base on the perceptions of Greek and Roman culture seen through renaissance, and even modern eyes, and is valid of itself even if inaccurate. I cant really post examples of this, it's easier to post examples where renaissance preconceptions of classicism were right rather than wrong.
The 'Confederate flag', as in the stars and bars is a good example of the continuation culture, it might not be the formal flag of the Confederacy then, but it is now.
Referring to the Confederate battle flag as the "stars and bars" is an example of historically unaware slang. The fact that people casually refer to the British flag as the Union Jack doesn't demonstrate otherwise.
Orlanth wrote: I bothered to post an explaination, you just denied.
I explained that your argument was premised on a tu quoque fallacy. Did you expect me to also teach you what that means?
Dude, you're um arguing with yourself or something. You're not supposed to do that in public. Thats when the guys with the nets come...
I missed a line of the quote title.
Fixed that for you.
<Ducks mods>
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Referring to the Confederate battle flag as the "stars and bars" is an example of historically unaware slang. The fact that people casually refer to the British flag as the Union Jack doesn't demonstrate otherwise.
Go to Frazzies bar and be 'right' there.
Then you may understand that its part of an evolving culture.
Orlanth wrote: Then you may understand that its part of an evolving culture.
I have amply demonstrated understanding how the symbol has evolved.
Manchu wrote: These days, people use the term "stars and bars" to refer to the battle flag, especially in the context of its current significance as a symbol of twentieth-century white supremacy.
Manchu wrote: It has acquired a racist meaning only in the sense that the kind or racism it represents has changed considerably over the years. Yes, it has always stood for white supremacy. But being racist in a society where racism is not just a given truth but probably the central facet of daily life in terms of popular culture is very different from being a racist in a society where racists constantly proclaim that racism is no longer a problem and this flag isn't a racist symbol.
I grew up in the capital of the Confederacy. I was raised in houses built on Civil War battlefields. I went to public schools named after Confederate politicians and generals with kids whose whole wardrobe seemed to revolve around the battle flag in a county with an active KKK chapter. Consequently, I know a thing or two about what the flag currently means here in the South.
Am I the only one getting the urge to fly the Confederacy flag?
For me, this is turning into a massive freedom of speech issue. I have zero connection with the south, but defenders of liberty, which is the bedrock of America, should be concerned at this attack on a integral part of the nation's history. All sorts of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and band wagons have a habit of spiralling out of control.
Let's not forget. The flag didn't shoot those poor victims...
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
It is not an issue of free speech. People are free to fly their Confederate flags here. And their neighbors are free to form opinions on what kind of people do so.
For me, this is turning into a massive freedom of speech issue. I have zero connection with the south, but defenders of liberty, which is the bedrock of America, should be concerned at this attack on a integral part of the nation's history. All sorts of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and band wagons have a habit of spiralling out of control.
Let's not forget. The flag didn't shoot those poor victims...
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
Freedom of speech is not at threat here. We are talking about state governments flying the rebel flag, not individuals citizens.
Any compainies that have decided to stop merchandising in the rebel flag are also exercising their free speech as corporate "persons" (as disgusting as that legal construct is in general).
For me, this is turning into a massive freedom of speech issue. I have zero connection with the south, but defenders of liberty, which is the bedrock of America, should be concerned at this attack on a integral part of the nation's history. All sorts of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and band wagons have a habit of spiralling out of control.
Let's not forget. The flag didn't shoot those poor victims...
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
Orlanth wrote: Then you may understand that its part of an evolving culture.
I have amply demonstrated understanding how the symbol has evolved.
Manchu wrote: These days, people use the term "stars and bars" to refer to the battle flag, especially in the context of its current significance as a symbol of twentieth-century white supremacy.
Manchu wrote: It has acquired a racist meaning only in the sense that the kind or racism it represents has changed considerably over the years. Yes, it has always stood for white supremacy. But being racist in a society where racism is not just a given truth but probably the central facet of daily life in terms of popular culture is very different from being a racist in a society where racists constantly proclaim that racism is no longer a problem and this flag isn't a racist symbol.
No you have a narrow 'understanding'based on how it has been hijacked.
It is a cultural symbol for the states that formed part of the Confederacy. It can be used for any purpose, including calling for election of Barrack Obama, thanks to dereksatkinson for the image.
I would like to hear your explanation as to how that is a white supremacist move.
I think its pretty clear how it can be expressed as a local culture move.
Time to turn the scaremongering off frankly. Evidently it's a southern state cultural symbol, and while there are undeniably accounts of usage by white extremists, the iconography doesn't belong to them, it belongs to anyone who claims access to the heritage of one or more of the southern states.
For me, this is turning into a massive freedom of speech issue. I have zero connection with the south, but defenders of liberty, which is the bedrock of America, should be concerned at this attack on a integral part of the nation's history. All sorts of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and band wagons have a habit of spiralling out of control.
Let's not forget. The flag didn't shoot those poor victims...
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
Go ahead and fly 'em both!
You don't find the British flag offensive, even though it tried to strangle your nation at birth?
Orlanth wrote: No you have a narrow 'understanding'based on how it has been hijacked.
So the term is "evolved" for meanings you do like and "hijacked" for meanings you don't like? I see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Time to turn the scaremongering off frankly. Evidently it's a southern state cultural symbol, and while there are undeniably accounts of usage by white extremists, the iconography doesn't belong to them, it belongs to anyone who claims access to the heritage of one or more of the southern states.
One more time, since you ignored it previously:
Manchu wrote: I grew up in the capital of the Confederacy. I was raised in houses built on Civil War battlefields. I went to public schools named after Confederate politicians and generals with kids whose whole wardrobe seemed to revolve around the battle flag in a county with an active KKK chapter. Consequently, I know a thing or two about what the flag currently means here in the South.
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but no one is clamouring about the British flag in the US, because no one cares about it here. It's not a symbol of British oppression, it's a symbol of your neighbors fun vacation to London.
For me, this is turning into a massive freedom of speech issue. I have zero connection with the south, but defenders of liberty, which is the bedrock of America, should be concerned at this attack on a integral part of the nation's history. All sorts of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and band wagons have a habit of spiralling out of control.
Let's not forget. The flag didn't shoot those poor victims...
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
Freedom of speech is not at threat here. We are talking about state governments flying the rebel flag, not individuals citizens.
Any compainies that have decided to stop merchandising in the rebel flag are also exercising their free speech as corporate "persons" (as disgusting as that legal construct is in general).
Technically, state governments ARE the people. The people should be the final arbiters on this. Hopefully, South Carolina will put it to the vote.
For me, this is turning into a massive freedom of speech issue. I have zero connection with the south, but defenders of liberty, which is the bedrock of America, should be concerned at this attack on a integral part of the nation's history. All sorts of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and band wagons have a habit of spiralling out of control.
Let's not forget. The flag didn't shoot those poor victims...
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
Private citizens are free to fly it. That doesn't mean that shops have to sell it to them. If Amazon decides that it doesn't want to sell Confederate flags then that is Amazons decision.
Having the right to fly a flag does not mean others are legally obliged to sell you the flag.
As for government buildings, it should never have been flying above them in the first place after the Confederacy was defeated.
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but no one is clamouring about the British flag in the US, because no one cares about it here. It's not a symbol of British oppression, it's a symbol of your neighbors fun vacation to London.
I know what your saying but from what I've been reading, all the talk is of 'symbols of oppression.' What could be more oppressing than the nation that tried to kill the USA in its infancy?
For me, this is turning into a massive freedom of speech issue. I have zero connection with the south, but defenders of liberty, which is the bedrock of America, should be concerned at this attack on a integral part of the nation's history. All sorts of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and band wagons have a habit of spiralling out of control.
Let's not forget. The flag didn't shoot those poor victims...
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
Freedom of speech is not at threat here. We are talking about state governments flying the rebel flag, not individuals citizens.
Any compainies that have decided to stop merchandising in the rebel flag are also exercising their free speech as corporate "persons" (as disgusting as that legal construct is in general).
Technically, state governments ARE the people. The people should be the final arbiters on this. Hopefully, South Carolina will put it to the vote.
South Carolina legislators (I.e. the people) are going to remove the flag, by themselves, because they realize it's not a good idea to have it there. End of story.
For me, this is turning into a massive freedom of speech issue. I have zero connection with the south, but defenders of liberty, which is the bedrock of America, should be concerned at this attack on a integral part of the nation's history. All sorts of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and band wagons have a habit of spiralling out of control.
Let's not forget. The flag didn't shoot those poor victims...
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
I get what you're saying, and while there are plenty of idiots out there saying that it should be outright banned in all facets of life, most of us here are arguing that it isn't a state flag, it's not a national flag, its nor a corporate flag, so what business does it have flying above a State's Governmental building?
Companies like Amazon and Walmart and eBay (though eBay... I have no idea how they'd "enforce" this) saying that they will no longer sell items with this imagery is up to them, it's a freedom of speech. And remember, corporations are people too
Kilkrazy wrote: You are not alone, but you are not on the side of the angels I am afraid.
Why not fly a Nazi flag? That also is freedom of speech.
I wouldn't fly one myself, but I would have no objection to somebody else flying one.
Even idiots and racists have first amendment rights...
I feel revolutionary zeal coming over me, and I put this down the fact that I've been reading the federalist papers again.
On mainland Europe it is thoroughly banned. Its banned a political symbol and the UK has had a ban on political uniforms since the 30's. However due to our firm and undeniable 'allied' status in the UK, we can fly one in the UK in some conditions, historical reenactment is one of them, making films is another, its also acceptable to own them. Though Gordon Brown was looking at trying to make mileage by stopping all that.
In Germany and some other European countries it cant be recreated for any purpose, including historical and educational, though existing iconography may be preserved, but in some cases only by authorised persons.
For me, this is turning into a massive freedom of speech issue. I have zero connection with the south, but defenders of liberty, which is the bedrock of America, should be concerned at this attack on a integral part of the nation's history. All sorts of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and band wagons have a habit of spiralling out of control.
Let's not forget. The flag didn't shoot those poor victims...
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
Private citizens are free to fly it. That doesn't mean that shops have to sell it to them. If Amazon decides that it doesn't want to sell Confederate flags then that is Amazons decision.
Having the right to fly a flag does not mean others are legally obliged to sell you the flag.
As for government buildings, it should never have been flying above them in the first place after the Confederacy was defeated.
Personally, in my opinion, this is only the thin edge of the wedge. I think there's more to come on this. If there's one thing we've learned about the 21stcentury, it's this: people love a bandwagon.
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but no one is clamouring about the British flag in the US, because no one cares about it here. It's not a symbol of British oppression, it's a symbol of your neighbors fun vacation to London.
I know what your saying but from what I've been reading, all the talk is of 'symbols of oppression.' What could be more oppressing than the nation that tried to kill the USA in its infancy?
You'll just have to take my word, Americans generally don't view the British flag as a symbol of oppression, but simply as the flag of one of our closest allies. I'm sure there are some nutjobs sitting at home in their underwear licking peanut butter off the floor and throwing darts at an effigy of the tyrant King George, but it just doesn't register as an offensive symbol to the vast majority of Americans, and most Americans are probably fond of it.
You'll just have to take my word, Americans generally don't view the British flag as a symbol of oppression, but simply as the flag of one of our closest allies. I'm sure there are some nutjobs sitting at home in their underwear licking peanut butter off the floor and throwing darts at an effigy of the tyrant King George, but it just doesn't register as an offensive symbol to the vast majority of Americans, and most Americans are probably find of it.
I know more people who only seem to know the "union jack" (yeah yeah... we know) as a symbol of punk rock.... No idea where they'd get that idea though
Frazzle would reply, "Grant versus Lee, Appomattox Courthouse, 1865" shows that states cannot secede.
Indeed. unfortunately too many internet warriors have not read up on the case.
Just re-read the wiki on Antietam. Terrible absolutely terrible conflict. Some historians are now thinking casualties were much higher overall at 750,000 for the war for soldiers alone. Given the population size thats massive. Then you realize that most of the casualties occurred in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, and its gets twitchy.
Exactly, show anyone the swastika and ask them what it means? hindu peace or nazi?
That greatly depends on the person's education level, honestly.
Because for myself, and many people here who have some higher education, the orientation of the swastika is going to play a role in how I personally answer that question.
Worth noting here that the swastika is found world wide, and that the Nazi swastika has close connection to a symbol of Thor commonly found on Viking/Norse shields. Logically this makes sense given all the other crap those nazi donkey caves stole from my faith.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's just a flag. It doesn't make anybody be or do anything.
People behaved differently, had different standards, morals, beliefs and knowledge in different eras. The Confederate flag shouldn't be flown over state and federal buildings because it's not longer a flag that represents a state or the nation. Private citizens can fly whatever flags they want for any reason they want. The mere symbol itself holds no meaning beyond what an individual ascribes to it.
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't an evil bigotted racist tv show just because Bo and Luke painted the battle flag on the roof of their car.
If we're going to get outraged over flags that were flown by people whose beliefs and actions we now find unacceptable we need to be upset over most of the flags that exist.
Japan committed horrible racist genocidal atrocities against civilians during WWII and evil war crimes against POWs. Should I be offended by Japan's flag? Does anyone who chooses to wear or fly that flag automatically give his/her tacit approval to the crimes committed under the auspices of that flag?
A lot of Koreans and Chinese are offended by the Japanese flag, especially the rising sun version. Similar to the CSA flag it has got an association with right wing extremist nationalists.
That's my point, most flags can be associated with horrors committed against others and have a group or groups of people who despise it or are offended by it. Yet, they're still just symbols on cloth, they hold no sway over people and don't need to be censored. There's no need to be myopic and get outraged over one particular flag while ignoring all the others.
I understand your point, however the thing is a lot of people genuinely for good historical reasons find the CSA flag disturbing and offensive. If you want them to change their minds it will take a lot more effort than just saying they ought not to be myopic.
An African-American who is upset by the CSA flag doesn't have to give a feth about the Japanese IN battle flag to legitimately be upset about the CSA flag. It would be a bit silly to try to make things like that a condition of social intercourse.
The Japanese committed atrocities against Americans under that flag, I have relatives and friends' relatives that wre maimed and killed by them. The US govt locked up Americans of Japanese heritage in internment camps and confiscated their property. Yet after the war we managed to move on and didn't need to use public shaming and peer pressure to dissuade anyone from owning or displaying a Japanese flag.
There is no need to ban or limit anything or everything that some people might find offensive or upsetting. The Confederacy didn't invent slavery, it's been around for the entirety of human history. It's been utilized by and socially accepted by both Ancient and Western Civilizations until recent modern times. Pretty much everyone alive today can trace back their ancestry far enough to get to a time when their ancestors were either owning slaves, being enslaved or both. Slavery was part of the foundation of the Southern economy and culture and when the Southern states realized that the free states were going to hold a majority in congress and use that majority to pressure the South to end slavery, they felt that form tyranny of the majority was inconsistent with their interpreation of the inherent values and ideals of the representative republic and system of federalism the country was founded in. Therefore those states chose to voluntarily leave the country they had previously voluntarily joined. Rather than let them leave the free states decided it was better to fight a civil war to preserve the union of states as it was. Consequently we had the bloodiest conflict in our nation's history with the highest death toll of any war we've fought. The Southerners fought to preserve their way of life and their political ideals and the fact that they lost and that those ideals and that way of life are no longer acceptable to today's society doesn't mean that they fought with less passion or courage than other American soldier. They won't evil subhuman monsters, they were ordinary people just like us, but born in a diferent time, into a different culture and they held different beliefs. Therefore, it is no wonder that there are monuments in the south to the fallen Confederate soldiers and it is entirely logical that those monuments would include the flag under which those soldiers fought.
What is the point of removing the flag from a memorial to Confederate soldiers while leaving the memorial standing? Does the elimination of the flag somehow remove the fact that there is a large memorial to soldiers that died fighting to preserve slavery prominently displayed on state grounds in the capital? Does not flying the flag anymore change that history or make it any less known and obvious?
Nobody has to buy a Confederate flag or fly a confederate flag and it certainly isn't appropriate to fly it over state or federal buildings but you can't just get rid of it. There are Civil War memorials all over the country from the Mason Dixon Line down to the Gulf Coast, should they all be demolished so that nobody ever has to be offended by a memorial to a time when the country embraced white supremacy and slavery?
A flag is just a piece of cloth. It doesn't make anyone do anything or believe in anything. People can hold racist beliefs and commit racist crimes under whatever symbol or justification they want. It serves no practical purpose to assign some sort of evil thought crime to the mere possession or display of a flag.
You'll just have to take my word, Americans generally don't view the British flag as a symbol of oppression, but simply as the flag of one of our closest allies. I'm sure there are some nutjobs sitting at home in their underwear licking peanut butter off the floor and throwing darts at an effigy of the tyrant King George, but it just doesn't register as an offensive symbol to the vast majority of Americans, and most Americans are probably find of it.
I know more people who only seem to know the "union jack" (yeah yeah... we know) as a symbol of punk rock.... No idea where they'd get that idea though
Sex Pistols maybe?
Whenever I see the British Flag, I think of Iron Maiden before I think of Great Britain
My whole take on the situation: the confederate flag I got while I was visiting North Carolina just became quite a conversation piece
I have a small flag collection, I'm thinking might want to fill it out with a few more controversial ones; the old Imperialist Japanese flag is high on the list
You'll just have to take my word, Americans generally don't view the British flag as a symbol of oppression, but simply as the flag of one of our closest allies. I'm sure there are some nutjobs sitting at home in their underwear licking peanut butter off the floor and throwing darts at an effigy of the tyrant King George, but it just doesn't register as an offensive symbol to the vast majority of Americans, and most Americans are probably find of it.
I know more people who only seem to know the "union jack" (yeah yeah... we know) as a symbol of punk rock.... No idea where they'd get that idea though
Sex Pistols maybe?
Whenever I see the British Flag, I think of Iron Maiden before I think of Great Britain
Hey, it's not our fault that we make the best music
You'll just have to take my word, Americans generally don't view the British flag as a symbol of oppression, but simply as the flag of one of our closest allies. I'm sure there are some nutjobs sitting at home in their underwear licking peanut butter off the floor and throwing darts at an effigy of the tyrant King George, but it just doesn't register as an offensive symbol to the vast majority of Americans, and most Americans are probably find of it.
I know more people who only seem to know the "union jack" (yeah yeah... we know) as a symbol of punk rock.... No idea where they'd get that idea though
Sex Pistols maybe?
Whenever I see the British Flag, I think of Iron Maiden before I think of Great Britain
Hey, it's not our fault that we make the best music
You made the best music.
It's been a while since Iron Maiden came out, you know...
Oasis, Spice Girls, Lady Soveriegn...you guys are slipping.
It's been a while since Iron Maiden came out, you know...
Last I checked they're still going
And hey, Oasis were good. Though admittedly since then we've got stuck in an indie-rock (I hate that term, they're all on big labels and their sound is hardly independent) rut interspersped with the latest X-Factor winner at christmas who promptly disappears after one album...
Kilkrazy wrote: You are not alone, but you are not on the side of the angels I am afraid.
Why not fly a Nazi flag? That also is freedom of speech.
I wouldn't fly one myself, but I would have no objection to somebody else flying one.
Even idiots and racists have first amendment rights...
I feel revolutionary zeal coming over me, and I put this down the fact that I've been reading the federalist papers again.
On mainland Europe it is thoroughly banned. Its banned a political symbol and the UK has had a ban on political uniforms since the 30's. However due to our firm and undeniable 'allied' status in the UK, we can fly one in the UK in some conditions, historical reenactment is one of them, making films is another, its also acceptable to own them. Though Gordon Brown was looking at trying to make mileage by stopping all that.
In Germany and some other European countries it cant be recreated for any purpose, including historical and educational, though existing iconography may be preserved, but in some cases only by authorised persons.
In most nordic countries it is legal to go around waving any flag you want. I recommend checking that before though, as it varies.
Sienisoturi wrote: The question then becomes that why can't states seccede? Isn't it per definition tyrannical to force people under your rule?
In which case every single system where someone's not 100% pleased with every decision made becomes tyrannical. It reduces the concept of tyranny to pointlessness.
Frazzled wrote: They can't secede because several hundred thousand troops say they can't secede, plus now it would be economic suicide for most of the states.
I recall that that modern day CSA could have a stable economy.
For me, this is turning into a massive freedom of speech issue. I have zero connection with the south, but defenders of liberty, which is the bedrock of America, should be concerned at this attack on a integral part of the nation's history. All sorts of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and band wagons have a habit of spiralling out of control.
Let's not forget. The flag didn't shoot those poor victims...
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
Private citizens are free to fly it. That doesn't mean that shops have to sell it to them. If Amazon decides that it doesn't want to sell Confederate flags then that is Amazons decision.
Having the right to fly a flag does not mean others are legally obliged to sell you the flag.
As for government buildings, it should never have been flying above them in the first place after the Confederacy was defeated.
So New Mexico and Oklahoma will have to change their flags, since they represent other nations that were conquered by the USA, correct? Or do you not recognize the Native American tribes as formerly independent nations?
Sienisoturi wrote: 1) What is the standard practice for flying other than the national flag in govermental buildings?
Usually, it just need to be below the American / State flag.
2) Do states have the right to seccede, and if not, then why?
No... because... treason.
Vermont and Texas may have a different answer.
Kilkrazy wrote:You are not alone, but you are not on the side of the angels I am afraid.
Why not fly a Nazi flag? That also is freedom of speech.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sienisoturi wrote: 1) What is the standard practice for flying other than the national flag in govermental buildings?
2) Do states have the right to seccede, and if not, then why?
Frazzle would reply, "Grant versus Lee, Appomattox Courthouse, 1865" shows that states cannot secede.
The question then becomes that why can't states seccede? Isn't it per definition tyrannical to force people under your rule?
Plenty of tyranny to go around here. What Lincoln did was certainly tyrannical (especially in the case of Maryland) and a flagrant breach of the founding concept of the nation.
Then again, having freaking slaves is pretty tyrannical too. But both sides had slaves, which everyone forgets.
As usual the only really innocent party was Joe Random on the battlefield, getting .58 cal holes blown in him because the top 2% of the Southern Gentry couldn't agree with a bunch of Yankee industrialists. And the flag which South Carolina removed was over a monument commemorating the Confederate dead in the Civil War, IE the conscripted infantry that managed to hold off an American invasion (outnumbering them 9:1) for almost 5 years. It was about the most appropriate possible place in the galaxy to fly a rebel flag. Especially since one of the reasons South Carolina is so beautiful is because the local Confederates defended the state with such tenacity that it was never burninanted by our good pal, Sherman.
Orlanth wrote: No you have a narrow 'understanding'based on how it has been hijacked.
So the term is "evolved" for meanings you do like and "hijacked" for meanings you don't like? I see.
Evolved because it has remained as a cultural symbol for the south since its inception.
So a state can use this as its symbol, that evolution of the symbol.
An ideology is different, taking over the symbol for party political purposes is a hijacking. The KKK has always been a minority activity, a heritage symbol is regional and for everyone, though not everyone likes it or uses it.
I grew up in the capital of the Confederacy. I was raised in houses built on Civil War battlefields. I went to public schools named after Confederate politicians and generals with kids whose whole wardrobe seemed to revolve around the battle flag in a county with an active KKK chapter. Consequently, I know a thing or two about what the flag currently means here in the South.
Yes I did ignore your appeal to authority, personal experiences are valid evidence in my opinion, but your experience appears to be localised, also it makes sense for Confederate heritage to be strongly represented in Richmond (or Montgomery or Danville).
For good reason, despite your I live there 'credentials' you went full bore on how the stars and bars were a defacto racist white supremacist symbol, and failed, with evidence provided by others here and which you have still not addressed.
Please explain, what type of white supremacist is Barrack Obama? Or Bill Clinton for that matter.
It seems like you have had some bad experiences that have soiled your ability to look at the issue objectively, that might not be your fault. Much further and I may begin to wonder if you have a twitch when you see that flag.
Terms like "heritage symbol" are just crypto-racist marketing buzzwords. Because racist symbols make racists twitch, if I can borrow your term to make a slightly different point (evolved or hijacked?), but twitching over white supremacy is (rightfully) shameful so it needs to be rationalized. I've heard this kind of masturbatory, disinformation-based argument applied to the Confederate battle flag all my life because this is something that I (unlike you) have lived with all of my life.
Manchu wrote: Terms like "heritage symbol" are just crypto-racist marketing buzzwords. Because racist symbols make racists twitch, if I can borrow your term to make a slightly different point (evolved or hijacked?), but twitching over white supremacy is (rightfully) shameful so it needs to be rationalized. I've heard this kind of masturbatory, disinformation-based argument applied to the Confederate battle flag all my life because this is something that I (unlike you) have lived with all of my life.
Ok, looks like you have a problem.
'Masturbatory' eh. That's .... different.
It helps to develop a rational detachment.
And crypto-racist, is that actually a term?
I found out to my horror it is.
Looked for a definition found this
Crypto racism is on the rise. But what exactly is crypto racism you may ask? According to experts including psychologists, professors, community leaders, teachers and social workers it is racism that remains hidden, shrouded in secrecy by the individual racist. A hatred so vile and so ugly that it dare not speak its name. Because crypto racists go to great lengths to mask and hide their racism it can be very hard to detect even by expert anti-racists and human rights activists.
Your boss, a co-worker, neighbour, friend, or fellow student may in fact be a crypto racist. A racist who has hidden his racism so carefully and cleverly that you have no idea it’s there hidden below the surface. He may manifest his racism publicly however in real ways by voting for candidates promising to cut welfare programs which largely benefit non-whites or occasionally expressing sympathy for those who criticize immigration reform. He may hold traditionalistic and regressive views on social issues.
I had to do a double take to see if its a spoof site. Apparently this is for real.
"Because crypto racists go to great lengths to mask and hide their racism it can be very hard to detect even by expert anti-racists and human rights activists." So it requires extra finger pointing to combat.
"Your boss, a co-worker, neighbour, friend, or fellow student may in fact be a crypto racist." Inquisitors needed, look for the signs of right wing heresy lurking in the populace.
It's the Progressive Liberal douche equivalent of the Malleus Malificarum.
.... So sidetrack over, what you are saying Manchu is that you want an excuse to hate the argument presented against you, so you accuse me of being an extremist, on absent evidence, so that you don't have to formulate a rational rebuttal.
Crypto-racist, nice one. Now you don't actually have to look for evidence before finger pointing, just turn up and label away.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Let's not forget when that flag was erected. The 1960s. This wasn't about honoring war dead as much as it was a flying "feth you" to desegregation.
That's also true of pretty much all Confederate memorials, which sprang up following the end of the Reconstruction-era in the 1890s, which not coincidentally saw the entrenchment of de jure racist institutions across the South.
Just last night, someone spray-painted "black lives matter" across the Jefferson Davis memorial here in Richmond (erected 1907).
LordofHats wrote: Not just the Presidential Election, but for the first time since the ratification of the Constitution and the formation of the parties, the Democratic Party had lost control of both the House, Senate, and the White House. And they threw a hissy fit like spoiled children and started a war that killed millions because they were paranoid about abolition.
Yeah. Let's celebrate that the South fought for that
More oversimplification.
The south felt that they could not, in any way, be properly represented in the united states house, senate, or white house. When every southern vote was counted, they found that due to population and the political climate, it was impossible for them to successfully campaign on any issue. The south then fought for a right called Nullification, which basically let certain states exercise the right to strike federal mandates they felt were not in their best interest. (We still don't have this, states just ignore federal laws, like colorado and it's pot.) When this was denied, the finally started talking about secession from a Union that did not represent them.
Lincoln himself was quoted as saying "Go back to Africa. No one here wants you."
Then there was Popular Sovereignty after the Mexican American war. Once states were allowed to decide, many fell to infighting that set the tone for "us against them." Kansas has a nickame of Bleeding Kansas, for a while there.
Talks over slavery were certainly a part, but not the whole cause, of the civil war.
Orlanth wrote: No you have a narrow 'understanding'based on how it has been hijacked.
It is a cultural symbol for the states that formed part of the Confederacy. It can be used for any purpose, including calling for election of Barrack Obama, thanks to dereksatkinson for the image.
I would like to hear your explanation as to how that is a white supremacist move.
I think its pretty clear how it can be expressed as a local culture move.
Time to turn the scaremongering off frankly. Evidently it's a southern state cultural symbol, and while there are undeniably accounts of usage by white extremists, the iconography doesn't belong to them, it belongs to anyone who claims access to the heritage of one or more of the southern states.
No, you just have zero understanding on what the "heritage" and "culture" that the flag represents.
You just willfully ignore every single thing I have provided to you, all of it straight from the the leaders of the Confederacy and their own Constitution. You have only provided a bunch of flowery, but empty prose, weak tu quoque arguments, and accusations of bigotry against anyone who disagrees with you. You are literally beyond reasoning with.
Manchu wrote: The Southern states were concerned that they would not be able to use the federal legislature to protect the institution of slavery.
This.
Every 'states right' they wanted was solely to protect and enforce Slavery, which enriched the upper class and was based entirely on a widespread acceptance of overt, institutionalized, celebrated racism. Nearly (if not all) Confederate states had as the key component of their statements of seccession that slavery was what they were trying to maintain. The CSA's own constitution is virtually identical to the USA's, except with multiple paragraphs inserted specifically to protect slavery. As mentioned before, the South was perfectly willing to trample OTHER state's rights in favor of federal power when the laws benefited them (ie, Fugitive Slave Law)
That 'heritage' is pretty much the same as hate. Because in this case, it's pride in a hateful, shameful, backwards heritage of a leadership caste who wanted to maintain a superior lifestyle by systematically exploiting an entire race of people with zero hope for them ever to improve their lot in society. Even wage slavery and child labor is less abhorent than such a thing.
The Civil Was was solely about slavery, and all of the means to uphold it, including destruction of the Union (ie, by removing half of it into an antagonistic neighboring state).
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but no one is clamouring about the British flag in the US, because no one cares about it here. It's not a symbol of British oppression, it's a symbol of your neighbors fun vacation to London.
I know what your saying but from what I've been reading, all the talk is of 'symbols of oppression.' What could be more oppressing than the nation that tried to kill the USA in its infancy?
It's more like they were trying to hold on to an expensive venture that suddenly went south. We didn't from up from the Indians to have the brits come down on us. We came from the brits and then told them to bugger off when we realized they were an ocean away, making money off our work, and not listening to a word we said about how to better our own lives here.
Being racist is a shameful thing. But it is also like being sick. It's not morally wrong to have a cold and you probably have a cold because of environmental factors over which you are unaware or maybe even have limited or no control. But you don't go around purposefully coughing in people's faces and then think saying "pardon me" makes it all better. And you don't say having a cold is part of your heritage. What you should do is, try to get better and avoid spreading the contagion.
If this take this issue to its logical conclusion, then the British flag should be next...
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but no one is clamouring about the British flag in the US, because no one cares about it here. It's not a symbol of British oppression, it's a symbol of your neighbors fun vacation to London.
I know what your saying but from what I've been reading, all the talk is of 'symbols of oppression.' What could be more oppressing than the nation that tried to kill the USA in its infancy?
It's more like they were trying to hold on to an expensive venture that suddenly went south. We didn't from up from the Indians to have the brits come down on us. We came from the brits and then told them to bugger off when we realized they were an ocean away, making money off our work, and not listening to a word we said about how to better our own lives here.
Bettering your own lives at the expense of millions of people treated worse than cattle. Noble ideals indeed.
Manchu wrote: Being racist is a shameful thing. But it is also like being sick. It's not morally wrong to have a cold and you probably have a cold because of environmental factors over which you are unaware or maybe even have limited or no control. But you don't go around purposefully coughing in people's faces and then think saying "pardon me" makes it all better. And you don't say having a cold is part of your heritage. What you should do is, try to get better and avoid spreading the contagion.
This, plus the "Everyone in this country is racist" comment both lead me believe that you honestly think that a white guy living his life has something to feel guilty about whether he lives his life doing racist things or not. I read some things about white privledge, which is a concept I can accept as existing, but not with the terrible overtones that accompany it.
Your average white person doesn't need to apologize about it mostly being white people on TV. White people are more numerous, thus spend more money for programming, thus are the target audience. There's nothing sinister there.
White people shouldn't feel bad they *usually aren't subjected to hate crime by virtue of being white. Sucks other people go through it, but it doesn't make the white person another cog in the racist society. (*Depends on where they live. The concept or argument that since whites are the majority they cannot by definition be subjected to racism is completely wrong. The white couple murdered for driving through the wrong neighborhood would certainly qualify as a racist event.)
Due to numbers and population, there's no reason that management workforces should be half black half white. IF so, it would show a trend of promotion because black, which is still not promotion on individual merit. But word flies that whites are somehow in the wrong because there aren't enough blacks promoted.
This country doesn't have a problem with ingrown racism in every citizen. It's got a problem with people using racism as an excuse for everything.
You just willfully ignore every single thing I have provided to you, all of it straight from the the leaders of the Confederacy and their own Constitution.
Well here is the rub, they arent alive anymore. In case you are wondering this was last active in 1865. Since that time it has been a third hand symbol, and thus a historical symbol.
I explained in full why these are not tu quoque arguments. You have not bothered to try and rebuke that, just repeated the call tu quoque like a parrot.
Parrots are animals, humans provide rational arguement, so put up one.
and accusations of bigotry against anyone who disagrees with you.
Well you have added total reading comprehension failure, the accusations of bigotry have been against me not by me. I explained the difference in an earlier thread.
I even had a new hysterical tactic tried out, if you cant find evidence of my 'racism' just say its hidden then you don need to find it.
It's a dogpile frankly, and I have been moderate and mild in my response, keeping to the issues.
You haven't even tried reasoning. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for you to start.
One thing you cant accuse me of is not backing my position. I have done so thoroughly and consistently, even if you either don't agree with it, or equally possibly dont have the ability to understand it.
Carry on though, I am not the type to call the mods when trolled, and mods join in anyway, so you are in safe company. Its generally ok on Dakka to try and take a piece out of Orlanth, and I must be careful how I bite back.
Thunderfrog wrote: you honestly think that a white guy living his life has something to feel guilty about whether he lives his life doing racist things or not
I don't think people need to apologize for being racist. I do think people should apologize for doing racist things. Again, it's one thing to be sick. It's another thing to sneeze in someone's face. Now, sometimes you might sneeze in someone's face by accident. Well, even if it is an accident, you still ought to apologize.
Manchu wrote: Being racist is a shameful thing. But it is also like being sick. It's not morally wrong to have a cold and you probably have a cold because of environmental factors over which you are unaware or maybe even have limited or no control. But you don't go around purposefully coughing in people's faces and then think saying "pardon me" makes it all better. And you don't say having a cold is part of your heritage. What you should do is, try to get better and avoid spreading the contagion.
This, plus the "Everyone in this country is racist" comment both lead me believe that you honestly think that a white guy living his life has something to feel guilty about whether he lives his life doing racist things or not. I read some things about white privledge, which is a concept I can accept as existing, but not with the terrible overtones that accompany it.
g.
Frankly that post alarmed me too, its fundamentalist in its appeal.
As a white male you are either a racist, or sub-conciously racist. Sub-concious racists need to be educated to understand that they are bigots but don't know it, should be shamed and changed so that they become more ethical members of society. Racist needs to be rooted out if overt, or exposed and rooted out if covert. Some rehabilitation can be possible.
It's a self flagellating witch hunt. This type of bollocks is usually directly related to the progressive left, if you make the White Male oppressor suitably guilty you gain equality for all.
The irony is that this type of brainwashing, applied societal guilt, is very similar to how cults work on a personal level, and also follows the pattern of centralised doctrinarian dogmas throughout history. As you cant instill a de facto junta in a modern democracy progressives have come up with the next best thing. Voluntary disenfranchisement via guilt.
Nasty thing about guilt trips as a power ideology, its self perpetuating. You can say to the victim you want to self stigmatise that its temporary, though it rarely is. Just look at Catholicism for example of that.
The only honest response from anyone in this country is YES. First step to working on this issue is admitting it exists.
so everyone in America is a racist then?
are you racist?
It's not so much that everyone in america is a racist. But there is a inherent racism in the american culture and way of life. From the entire legal system cops to judges, the studies that show non white names don't get called back for job interviews, from the new's constant painting of blacks to be lazy thugs on welfare who deserve to die.
The only way to overcome any problem is to first admit there is one, then shine a huge light on it and fix it. But america is still in denial and has no plans on admitting there's a problem any time soon.
Probably not. But as I recall black men often get harder prison sentences than white men for the same crimes, just as an example. Part of it may be due to having worse lawyers ofc.
Orlanth wrote: Ok, as I say that often enough I have no fair choice but to ask. What did I miss?
You are going on and on about white guilt. My posts have nothing to do with white guilt. I chose the metaphor of having a cold specifically to explain the nuances of moral responsibility: namely, looking at the world with a racist mindset is not a matter of guilt; doing racist things, however, is. The truth is, living in the USA is living in a racist society. We started forming a racist mindset in the crib. When we look at each other, we can't help but see race and not just as some neutral social fact but with all the attendant prejudices. We need to be a bit self-aware and self-critical about these notions we've inherited from our forbears and that we pick up as we live our lives. Overcoming our racism is not about feeling guilty; it's about being mindful and considerate and reflective.
There is nothing fundamentalist about encouraging people to apply critical thought to their beliefs and values.
Orlanth wrote: Ok, as I say that often enough I have no fair choice but to ask. What did I miss?
You are going on and on about white guilt. My posts have nothing to do with white guilt. I chose the metaphor of having a cold specifically to explain the nuances of moral responsibility: namely, looking at the world with a racist mindset is not a matter of guilt; doing racist things, however, is. The truth is, living in the USA is living in a racist society. We started forming a racist mindset in the crib. When we look at each other, we can't help but see race and not just as some neutral social fact but with all the attendant prejudices. We need to be a bit self-aware and self-critical about these notions we've inherited from our forbears and that we pick up as we live our lives. Overcoming our racism is not about feeling guilty; it's about being mindful and considerate and reflective.
I get what you're saying... I think... about the "USA is living in a racist society".
It's the word racistI think incurs very strong emotional defensive response.
How about saying, we're living in a hyphenated society.
African-American
Asian-American
Indian-American
Cuban-American
Mexican-American
and what have yous...
I think, in a roundabout way, you're saying that because we do this, we're self-segregating ourselves in a way that can be a challenge to fully assimilate.
Because, at the end of the day, we ALL should be saying that we're just AMERICANS.
We aren't living in a hyphenated society. The hyphen thing is just a product of attempts to white wash racism. African-American is silly term that has done nothing but confuse the issue. Let's face it, the problem of race in this country starts because there are white folks and black folks, and the former used to own the latter. I was thinking about this the other day, specifically the term "colored people." These days we have this term "people of color" and it's about evoking some kind of rainbow dumptruck of non-whites. Nope -- "colored people" means "black people." The deeply embedded white supremacy tendencies in the USA definitely hurts Mexicans and Koreans and everyone else who is not considered white. But the central issue, where this really all comes from, is the fact that white people in this country used to be able to own black people and that peculiar institution so warped our society from then to now that we are still living in one-drop rule world.
There is prejudice and racism everywhere around the world. But we have our own version of it here in the USA shaped by the unique circumstances of our experience.
In effect, what I am trying to communicate here (and in pretty much every other OT discussion that I participate in) is that history is real.
The only honest response from anyone in this country is YES. First step to working on this issue is admitting it exists.
so everyone in America is a racist then?
are you racist?
It's not so much that everyone in america is a racist. But there is a inherent racism in the american culture and way of life. From the entire legal system cops to judges, the studies that show non white names don't get called back for job interviews, from the new's constant painting of blacks to be lazy thugs on welfare who deserve to die.
The only way to overcome any problem is to first admit there is one, then shine a huge light on it and fix it. But america is still in denial and has no plans on admitting there's a problem any time soon.
Racism is inherent in human society because we are a tribal animal.
However there is 'racism' and there is 'racism'.
Tribalism is to be expected. Post Apartheid South Africa wont vote for a white guy as president, why, are they all racists? In a very real way yes, but its common tribalism and to be expected.
Tribalism isnt necessarily a bad thing, as it builds identity, and that works as easily on a national as well as a racial level.
The trick is that humans are naturally pro-tribal accept that and work on making them not anti anyone else. It can be done, and a lot of societies are naturally open and tolerant.
However the modern PC movement/progressive liberalism and whatever regional label it has is not a positive force in this, despite its relentless crowing that it is. Progressivism is an active political movement, and as such has agendas and beneficiaries, at best its about as integrally fair as laisse faire/free market capitalism (which is anything but equal, but does to some degree allow self betterment for all), at worst its an aggressive labeling doctrinal system out to elevate some at the expense of others, with enfranchisement being matched and fueled by dis-empowerment, often by heavy handed means.
We see both extremes in the modern PC movement, some harmless and well intentioned , some about as harmless as a rabid fundamentalist theocracy.
Hey guys, I just noticed this thread and I was curious if anyone could answer this small bit of confusion. But during the Vietnam War, there were marines and military personnel who used to go around waving the Confederate flag during deployments, apparently the US military didn't particularly pay attention and let that continue.
But what did the flag symbolize? I mean they had African American personnel with them, it seemed kinda odd.
Manchu wrote: We aren't living in a hyphenated society. The hyphen thing is just a product of attempts to white wash racism. African-American is silly term that has done nothing but confuse the issue. Let's face it, the problem of race in this country starts because there are white folks and black folks, and the former used to own the latter. I was thinking about this the other day, specifically the term "colored people." These days we have this term "people of color" and it's about evoking some kind of rainbow dumptruck of non-whites. Nope -- "colored people" means "black people." The deeply embedded white supremacy tendencies in the USA definitely hurts Mexicans and Koreans and everyone else who is not considered white. But the central issue, where this really all comes from, is the fact that white people in this country used to be able to own black people and that peculiar institution so warped our society from then to now that we are still living in one-drop rule world.
There is prejudice and racism everywhere around the world. But we have our own version of it here in the USA shaped by the unique circumstances of our experience.
In effect, what I am trying to communicate here (and in pretty much every other OT discussion that I participate in) is that history is real.
So what's the solution.
All I'm reading is that, there's a problem.
We've had years of Desegregation programs.
Years of Affirmative Action programs.
Years of preferential college tuition/attendence programs.
And on, and on...
You say that we're a "racist country".
I see a President who's the first African American elected to our highest office.
Maybe it's because I see it as "glass half-full" and you're seeing these as "glass half-empty"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Evident-Disaster wrote: Hey guys, I just noticed this thread and I was curious if anyone could answer this small bit of confusion. But during the Vietnam War, there were marines and military personnel who used to go around waving the Confederate flag during deployments, apparently the US military didn't particularly pay attention and let that continue.
But what did the flag symbolize? I mean they had African American personnel with them, it seemed kinda odd.
Orlanth wrote: Care to even try to quantify why, or are you just going to sling insults.
My accurately pointing out that you have no clue what you are talking about is not an insult, unless you feel insulted by not knowing as much as you think you do.
Well here is the rub, they arent alive anymore. In case you are wondering this was last active in 1865. Since that time it has been a third hand symbol, and thus a historical symbol.
That's a new one for you... The original confederates are alive anymore, so now the flag only means what you want it to mean (which is still wrong). Wow, you're really reaching now.
Yet you wont try to actually quote or counter.
I've already explained numerous times how wrong you are on every one of you posts where you have tried to explain to me what my heritage is.
I explained in full why these are not tu quoque arguments. You have not bothered to try and rebuke that, just repeated the call tu quoque like a parrot.
Parrots are animals, humans provide rational arguement, so put up one.
Who exactly am I parroting here? I was the first person to call you out of your weak tu quoque argument. Besides your complete lack of understand Southern heritage, the only thing you been able to come up with is weak fallacies which I won't counter. Which is cute, because now you are accusing me of not providing a 'rational argument.'
Well you have added total reading comprehension failure, the accusations of bigotry have been against me not by me. I explained the difference in an earlier thread.
I even had a new hysterical tactic tried out, if you cant find evidence of my 'racism' just say its hidden then you don need to find it.
It's a dogpile frankly, and I have been moderate and mild in my response, keeping to the issues.
In your rant about "armed comedy" or whatever you called it, you said that anyone who (rightly) sees someone flying a Confederate flag is the real bigot in this equation, despite the fact that more than one person has explained what the "heritage" that flag represents. The bottom line is this mate, there are two people who believe in displaying that flag: those who know exactly what it stands for and those who are ignorant of it.
You haven't even tried reasoning. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for you to start.
One thing you cant accuse me of is not backing my position. I have done so thoroughly and consistently, even if you either don't agree with it, or equally possibly dont have the ability to understand it.
Carry on though, I am not the type to call the mods when trolled, and mods join in anyway, so you are in safe company. Its generally ok on Dakka to try and take a piece out of Orlanth, and I must be careful how I bite back.
Here comes the persecution complex... By the way, I'm not trolling you, not in the least bit, so I don't know why you would even call the mods. I don't agree with you because you're wrong and you have spent who knows how many posts defending yourself with fallacies and poor attempts at reasoning. There is nothing you have said that I don't understand, so don't pat yourself too hard on the back. You are wrong about the flag, you're wrong about Southern heritage, you're wrong in all your accusations of white guilt, and you're wrong about judging the actions of my ancestors.
Have you ever thought that maybe the reason people keep telling you that you're wrong is because you're wrong?
The only honest response from anyone in this country is YES. First step to working on this issue is admitting it exists.
so everyone in America is a racist then?
are you racist?
It's not so much that everyone in america is a racist. But there is a inherent racism in the american culture and way of life. From the entire legal system cops to judges, the studies that show non white names don't get called back for job interviews, from the new's constant painting of blacks to be lazy thugs on welfare who deserve to die.
The only way to overcome any problem is to first admit there is one, then shine a huge light on it and fix it. But america is still in denial and has no plans on admitting there's a problem any time soon.
Racism is inherent in human society because we are a tribal animal.
However there is 'racism' and there is 'racism'.
Tribalism is to be expected. Post Apartheid South Africa wont vote for a white guy as president, why, are they all racists? In a very real way yes, but its common tribalism and to be expected.
Tribalism isnt necessarily a bad thing, as it builds identity, and that works as easily on a national as well as a racial level.
The trick is that humans are naturally pro-tribal accept that and work on making them not anti anyone else. It can be done, and a lot of societies are naturally open and tolerant.
However the modern PC movement/progressive liberalism and whatever regional label it has is not a positive force in this, despite its relentless crowing that it is. Progressivism is an active political movement, and as such has agendas and beneficiaries, at best its about as integrally fair as laisse faire/free market capitalism (which is anything but equal, but does to some degree allow self betterment for all), at worst its an aggressive labeling doctrinal system out to elevate some at the expense of others, with enfranchisement being matched and fueled by dis-empowerment, often by heavy handed means.
We see both extremes in the modern PC movement, some harmless and well intentioned , some about as harmless as a rabid fundamentalist theocracy.
I see you left out conservatives in post. That is highly telling of you. If the progressive liberals are not a positive force, than are saying conservatives are? the disenfranchise minority voter crowd? the small government for big business, and big government for womens rights crowd? The let's look backwards for answers to a time when they could own slaves and women couldn't vote crowd?
conservatives usually view liberals in a negative light and used as a insult, I'd guess mainly because they keep showing conservatives why they're wrong. Liberal is the way to go forward and it's not a dirty word.
Evident-Disaster wrote: Hey guys, I just noticed this thread and I was curious if anyone could answer this small bit of confusion. But during the Vietnam War, there were marines and military personnel who used to go around waving the Confederate flag during deployments, apparently the US military didn't particularly pay attention and let that continue.
But what did the flag symbolize? I mean they had African American personnel with them, it seemed kinda odd.
Manchu wrote: Again, it's one thing to be sick. It's another thing to sneeze in someone's face. Now, sometimes you might sneeze in someone's face by accident. Well, even if it is an accident, you still ought to apologize.
And just in case you need to be told, you also ought to try not to do it again.
I see a President who's the first African American elected to our highest office.
You're pretty far from the mark if you think that having a black president means racism is is gone. Like Obama said on Marc Maron's podcast... yeah, we've come a long way, but there is still more than can be done.
I see it and hear it almost every day. I know die hard Democrats that refused to vote for Obama solely because of his skin color. I've heard supervisors at my work refuse to hire people because they weren't white, no matter how qualified they were. For feth's sake, my piece of gak uncle said the only thing Dylan Roof did wrong was shoot those people in a church. This is all in my little sphere in Northern Virginia... I've spent considerable time in Georgia, and it was worse there.
Manchu wrote: You are going on and on about white guilt. My posts have nothing to do with white guilt. I chose the metaphor of having a cold specifically to explain the nuances of moral responsibility: namely, looking at the world with a racist mindset is not a matter of guilt; doing racist things, however, is. The truth is, living in the USA is living in a racist society. We started forming a racist mindset in the crib. When we look at each other, we can't help but see race and not just as some neutral social fact but with all the attendant prejudices. We need to be a bit self-aware and self-critical about these notions we've inherited from our forbears and that we pick up as we live our lives. Overcoming our racism is not about feeling guilty; it's about being mindful and considerate and reflective.
An expected reply from someone who has been frankly conditioned by progressivism.
My posts have nothing to do with white guilt. - Actually they have a lot to do with white guilt, you cant see it because your perspective has been taken away.
The truth is, living in the USA is living in a racist society. - True, but all societies are racist. But you are told to see your own racism if you fair to be insufficiently welcoming.
Others are not being racist if they avoid negativity.
We started forming a racist mindset in the crib. - Actually not really, but as you weren't really self aware then you wont know you have been lied to unless a counter argument is presented.
You are aware of your identity from an early age, but as a infant your recognition doesn't go beyond your own immediate family.
Education can successfully create a multi ethnic culture, there are many historica examples. Multi-culturalism is a lot harder, and its very hard to find successful examples outside the the caste system, and that is inherently highly unequal, but workable because each caste has its place.
We need to be a bit self-aware and self-critical about these notions we've inherited from our forbears and that we pick up as we live our lives - You do, but do others?
Overcoming our racism is not about feeling guilty; it's about being mindful and considerate and reflective. - That is guilt right there. You have an expectation for sacrificial giving to build a broken society. You might not see this at first, but you must be reflective and considerate, must others? Often not. The burden is on you.
Spoiler:
I heard this argument from a police officer last time I took the train back to Watford. Some black guy played loud music, was asked by a little old lady to stop and she got very serious verbal abuse including threats. Some people stood up for her, myself included, I called the train staff. A policeman turned up and asked us all to have 'quiet reflection', those very words. Had the ethnicities been reversed I would no be surprised if it was handled as a race crime. Ironically we got anything but quiet reflection, the music was cranked up even higher now nothing would be done.
I put the above in spoiler tags as it isn't part of my argument, but it is interesting that the same language was used.
There has been a lot of media coverage about race disputes in the US of late, and mindful/considerate/reflective doesn't seem to describe the means of self expression.
The fact that these attitudes are targeted at the 'political majority' which largely means the white middle class (though not exclusively), others are not expected to share this mindset and excuses are made to a large degree, as evidenced time and again in recent months.
Guilt comes into it because it is the quiet fuel for the mindful reflection you have to maintain, and its sacrificial because some are allowed to ask for more, others are not. Indeed they are expected to feel privileged enough, which cycles back to guilt.
No one is flogging you with a whip or forcing you to shave your head or wear a horse hair shirt, but the guilt inducement is quietly there in society.
If you want to deal with race inequality you need to get legislation in order. That job is long complete in the US, Canada and modern Europe. Beyond that its a cultural delimiter.
However some core issues need addressing and one core issue, the language barriers has yet to be addressed, and in the current climate cannot be addressed. Neither Americas nor Europe is ready for it yet.
What exactly do you mean by this question? Repeated here, along with the nasty idea that being considerate amounts to being guilty:
Orlanth wrote: Overcoming our racism is not about feeling guilty; it's about being mindful and considerate and reflective. - That is guilt right there. You have an expectation for sacrificial giving to build a broken society. You might not see this at first, but you must be reflective and considerate, must others? Often not. The burden is on you.
Years of preferential college tuition/attendence programs.
And on, and on...
You say that we're a "racist country".
I see a President who's the first African American elected to our highest office.
Maybe it's because I see it as "glass half-full" and you're seeing these as "glass half-empty"?
And everyone was just so overjoyed at having a black president, look at everything he accomplished. Well he tried to accomplish stuff. He will go down in history as the most filibustered president ever. While those that shut down the government get re elected into office and run for president later.
There has been some improvement over the years, but there's still a long way to go before every american is equal.
If anyone here had the solution we'd be off to collect our noble peace prize by now. The steps that are needed to get us to a solution is:
1. Admit we still have a problem
2. Discus the problem
3. come up with solutions.
I see a President who's the first African American elected to our highest office.
You're pretty far from the mark if you think that having a black president means racism is is gone. Like Obama said on Marc Maron's podcast... yeah, we've come a long way, but there is still more than can be done.
I see it and hear it almost every day. I know die hard Democrats that refused to vote for Obama solely because of his skin color. I've heard supervisors at my work refuse to hire people because they weren't white, no matter how qualified they were. For feth's sake, my piece of gak uncle said the only thing Dylan Roof did wrong was shoot those people in a church. This is all in my little sphere in Northern Virginia... I've spent considerable time in Georgia, and it was worse there.
Evident-Disaster wrote: Hey guys, I just noticed this thread and I was curious if anyone could answer this small bit of confusion. But during the Vietnam War, there were marines and military personnel who used to go around waving the Confederate flag during deployments, apparently the US military didn't particularly pay attention and let that continue.
But what did the flag symbolize? I mean they had African American personnel with them, it seemed kinda odd.
Was it patriotism or something obscure?
If you care to wade through 15+ pages of thread, you'll see that Jihadin kind of addressed this earlier (it's cool, you're new).
Thing is, it used to be, in the military you were allowed membership into hategroups, so long as you didn't preach that hatred. That is no longer true, but I'm sure there's still people out there who do, they just keep it real quiet.
As for what it symbolized... well, all the stuff we've been talking about in this thread. It represented a pride in their "Southern heritage" which includes the regions they were from in the US, racism and all the things that rednecks today claim it means.
Years of preferential college tuition/attendence programs.
And on, and on...
You say that we're a "racist country".
I see a President who's the first African American elected to our highest office.
Maybe it's because I see it as "glass half-full" and you're seeing these as "glass half-empty"?
And everyone was just so overjoyed at having a black president, look at everything he accomplished. Well he tried to accomplish stuff. He will go down in history as the most filibustered president ever. While those that shut down the government get re elected into office and run for president later.
There has been some improvement over the years, but there's still a long way to go before every american is equal.
If anyone here had the solution we'd be off to collect our noble peace prize by now. The steps that are needed to get us to a solution is:
1. Admit we still have a problem
2. Discus the problem
3. come up with solutions.
Again... what are the solutions? Specifically?
I can name a big one. Judicial/Incarceration reforms.
And people wonder why southerners feel the need to form a counter identity. Its because of statements like this.
So Southerners create a "racist, backwards thinking, and willfully ignorant" counter-identity?
Or do I have this counter-identity all wrong? Because the more I learn about the flag they're clinging to so desperately.... the more it don't look too good.
I see you left out conservatives in post. That is highly telling of you. If the progressive liberals are not a positive force, than are saying conservatives are? the disenfranchise minority voter crowd? the small government for big business, and big government for womens rights crowd? The let's look backwards for answers to a time when they could own slaves and women couldn't vote crowd?
conservatives usually view liberals in a negative light and used as a insult, I'd guess mainly because they keep showing conservatives why they're wrong. Liberal is the way to go forward and it's not a dirty word.
i left out quite a bit, you cant describe the condition of human politics in under a hundred words and be inclusive. Conservatism is not directly relevant to the issue, it is relevant to progrsive liberalism as it is its political anthithesis, but formally it has no real place in the progressive concensus.
It still has a symptomic presence and the manner of it now echoes that in Europe in the last decade. As progressivist dogma takes hold those with liberal credentials need do nothing, while those without must work extra hard to prove they are not bigots.
Case in point, its the Republican politicians who are falling over each other to remove Confed flags, or even in some cases (Misissippi) to call for a state flag to be redesigned removing confederate iconography. While Democrats are being the voice of reason. Democrats don't need to prove they arent white supremacists by
This echoes similar exhortations by the mid right in Europe during the main progressive swing before it was better understood. It also echoes the early stages of theocratic and similarly dogmatic states where those outside the church or party must be extra tough to prove themselves loyal to the creed.
There is something insidious about redesigning a culture to fit a short term dogmatic pressure. Cultures are built on their fashions and traditions, remove its fashions and it becomes stagnant, remove its traditions and becomes unstable. To fit a transient political pressure the south is on the verge of retconning over a century and a half of its culture and heritage. That is frankly alarming, and nothing good can come of it.
I can name a big one. Judicial/Incarceration reforms.
Education reforms, and NOT "common core" I mean this system where, because inner city schools, predominately populated by minorities, that don't do well on testing metrics get less funding... because that makes so much sense.
Whembly, I've seen you do the "positive spin" trick many times. You even tried it earlier in this thread, where you tried to make a discussion about the racist meaning of the battle flag into one about Christian forgiveness. You're still trying to get away from the fact that we live in a racist country by trying to talk about speculative policies, nevermind that you are asking for specific solutions to a problem you seem awfully unwilling to acknowledge.
Years of preferential college tuition/attendence programs.
And on, and on...
You say that we're a "racist country".
I see a President who's the first African American elected to our highest office.
Maybe it's because I see it as "glass half-full" and you're seeing these as "glass half-empty"?
And everyone was just so overjoyed at having a black president, look at everything he accomplished. Well he tried to accomplish stuff. He will go down in history as the most filibustered president ever. While those that shut down the government get re elected into office and run for president later.
There has been some improvement over the years, but there's still a long way to go before every american is equal.
If anyone here had the solution we'd be off to collect our noble peace prize by now. The steps that are needed to get us to a solution is:
1. Admit we still have a problem
2. Discus the problem
3. come up with solutions.
Again... what are the solutions? Specifically?
I can name a big one. Judicial/Incarceration reforms.
I mentioned that one earilier.
But, sure, allow me, one white guy to solve americas entire racial problem without consulting any other people. I'm sure my solution would be a big hit.
Stop being racists, Stop voting for republicans who disenfrancised voters. Don't vote for anyone who thinks mexicans coming into this country are all drug mules and rapists. Stop sticking up for cops who are clearly in the wrong.
Orlanth wrote: To fit a transient political pressure the south is on the verge of retconning over a century and a half of its culture and heritage. That is frankly alarming, and nothing good can come of it.
People aren't calling for a "retconning" of history, they are calling for the removal of one flag. That's hardly destroying a heritage.
And people wonder why southerners feel the need to form a counter identity. Its because of statements like this.
So Southerners create a "racist, backwards thinking, and willfully ignorant" counter-identity?
Or do I have this counter-identity all wrong? Because the more I learn about the flag they're clinging to so desperately.... the more it don't look too good.
Yes. You have it wrong. People that identify as "southerners" do not appreciate being automatically labeled racist, backwards thinking and willfully ignorant for doing so.
Furthermore, many southerners agree that the battle flag is an antiquated symbol of racism used as an explicit insult to the civil rights movement when it was first flown over Columbia in 1961. But because this controversy exists is it ok for people to paint all southerners as...and I quote..."inbreed"?
Manchu wrote: Whembly, I've seen you do the "positive spin" trick many times. You even tried it earlier in this thread, where you tried to make a discussion about the racist meaning of the battle flag into one about Christian forgiveness. You're still trying to get away from the fact that we live in a racist country by trying to talk about speculative policies, nevermind that you are asking for specific solutions to a problem you seem awfully unwilling to acknowledge.
Okay. You got me.
I refused to believe that this is a racist country as a whole.
I'm not saying that racists from all walks of life don't exist... because, they do.
But the whole U.S. of A.?
I'm sorry, but your worldview is awfully pessimistic.
Orlanth wrote: Overcoming our racism is not about feeling guilty; it's about being mindful and considerate and reflective. - That is guilt right there. You have an expectation for sacrificial giving to build a broken society. You might not see this at first, but you must be reflective and considerate, must others? Often not. The burden is on you.
Who is "you" here?
You societally most definitely, you personally possibly based on whether your posts reflect your actual core persona.
If you believe what you wrote then the veiled guilt chain is there. How its there has explained, the fact that the need to be 'considerate' and 'mindful' is selective burden on some societal groups but not others. Others very clearly have fewer or no such expectation.
As for the brainwashing label that causes you discomfort, frankly its why you don't see the societal guilt for what it is.
Brainwashing is not what you might think it is. Noone is accusing you of being a stupid moron who will sell everything for an orange robe and a chance to serve guru. Brainwashing is why a culturally advanced nation state known for its contributions to philosophy and culture follow the Feurer, brainwashing also makes people join the witchhunt of racists while maintaining a monastic persistent self examination for racial consideration. Humans are fragile and subject to brainwashing. Progressivism is the main brainwash agenda right now, if this is anyway unclear look at how it is used by student mobs, or at theslow march to cultural disintegration in Sweden.
And people wonder why southerners feel the need to form a counter identity. Its because of statements like this.
So Southerners create a "racist, backwards thinking, and willfully ignorant" counter-identity?
Or do I have this counter-identity all wrong? Because the more I learn about the flag they're clinging to so desperately.... the more it don't look too good.
Yes. You have it wrong. People that identify as "southerners" do not appreciate being automatically labeled racist, backwards thinking and willfully ignorant for doing so.
Furthermore, many southerners agree that the battle flag is an antiquated symbol of racism used as an explicit insult to the civil rights movement when it was first flown over Columbia in 1961. But because this controversy exists is it ok for people to paint all southerners as...and I quote..."inbreed"?
I think what we have here, since you and I actually agree... is a case of the "vocal minority" By that same token, there are some conservatives and republicans who live in New England. And not everyone who lives in Oregon and washington is a stoner or a hippy.
For me personally, I hated the period of time that I lived in the South. Yeah, there were some "cool" things in Nashville, but on the whole? the place was terrible. But then, maybe I'm somewhat jaded because I actually lived in Clarksville
whembly wrote: I'm sorry, but your worldview is awfully pessimistic.
That doesn't make sense to me. It's not pessimistic to acknowledge the fact that racial prejudice is a reality in all of our minds. I'm not saying we are bound to act on those prejudices.
Orlanth wrote: To fit a transient political pressure the south is on the verge of retconning over a century and a half of its culture and heritage. That is frankly alarming, and nothing good can come of it.
People aren't calling for a "retconning" of history, they are calling for the removal of one flag. That's hardly destroying a heritage.
In one week politicians have removed flags from memorials and discussed at a high level to replacement of a state flag, which is a permanent change to a states culture as it strips a portion of the states history away. There have been multiple refusals of sale starving out a portion of the culture, and even revisionism by the removal to host historical works which depict the flag even as a secondary element. We aren't even in week two yet.
Orlanth wrote: If you believe what you wrote then the veiled guilt chain is there. How its there has explained, the fact that the need to be 'considerate' and 'mindful' is selective burden on some societal groups but not others.
Okay so to spell it out, you believe that I'm saying white people should be considerate to non-whites but that non-whites should not be considerate of whites? Or is it even further, that in your experience, you believe that non-whites are not considerate of whites?
In one week politicians have removed flags from memorials and discussed at a high level to replacement of a state flag, which is a permanent change to a states culture as it strips a portion of the states history away. There have been multiple refusals of sale starving out a portion of the culture, and even revisionism by the removal to host historical works which depict the flag even as a secondary element. We aren't even in week two yet.
I'm sorry, but changing the state flag isn't changing the culture. How many people, on a daily basis think about their state flag? That number is probably very few.
Refusal of sale is also not destroying a culture. Those businesses are exercising their 1st Amendment rights to not "associate" with that kind of imagery (and yet, even as amazon has announced no more southern cross stuff, to try and find another user's claimed "Nazi Germany flag", I came across a Playstation 4 cover/controller covers of the nazi emblem, which was fairly sick in my mind)\
That last bit, you may have to reword, because I honestly don't know what you mean by "revisionism by the removal to host historical works which depict the flag even as a secondary element."
And people wonder why southerners feel the need to form a counter identity. Its because of statements like this.
So Southerners create a "racist, backwards thinking, and willfully ignorant" counter-identity?
Or do I have this counter-identity all wrong? Because the more I learn about the flag they're clinging to so desperately.... the more it don't look too good.
Yes. You have it wrong. People that identify as "southerners" do not appreciate being automatically labeled racist, backwards thinking and willfully ignorant for doing so.
Furthermore, many southerners agree that the battle flag is an antiquated symbol of racism used as an explicit insult to the civil rights movement when it was first flown over Columbia in 1961. But because this controversy exists is it ok for people to paint all southerners as...and I quote..."inbreed"?
I think what we have here, since you and I actually agree... is a case of the "vocal minority" By that same token, there are some conservatives and republicans who live in New England. And not everyone who lives in Oregon and washington is a stoner or a hippy.
For me personally, I hated the period of time that I lived in the South. Yeah, there were some "cool" things in Nashville, but on the whole? the place was terrible. But then, maybe I'm somewhat jaded because I actually lived in Clarksville
Fair enough. And you're right, the confederate flag is used by a very vocal group as an ambiguous symbol of misunderstood history and hatred. I just get very resentful when people casually display such hateful and dismissive attitudes towards all southerners, It creates a lot of resentment for me being called inbred and backward despite the fact that I, and many southerners like me, agree with the moderate consensus.
Orlanth wrote: Progressivism is the main brainwash agenda right now, if this is anyway unclear look at how it is used by student mobs, or at theslow march to cultural disintegration in Sweden.
There's certainly a cultural disintegration going on in Sweden; we're becoming more aware of the fact that we're not as good or not-racist as our self-image during the 1970's and 80's would have us believe. Our self-righteousness is being picked apart, piece by piece.
Of course, that's not what you meant at all, so I'm going to ask you: in what manner do you believe that there is a "cultural disintegration" going on in Sweden?
On another note, the current world order is inescapably one based on colonialism and imperialism. To refuse to accnowledge that, and to blame those who do for being the ignorant ones, is the true danger. Complaining about revisionism in a thread where you're aruging that slavery wasn't the driving force behind the American Civil War is so intellectually dishonest that I don't even know where to start.
Fair enough. And you're right, the confederate flag is used by a very vocal group as an ambiguous symbol of misunderstood history and hatred. I just get very resentful when people casually display such hateful and dismissive attitudes towards all southerners, It creates a lot of resentment for me being called inbred and backward despite the fact that I, and many southerners like me, agree with the moderate consensus.
Well, your location says "Not Arkansas" and "Not West Virginia" so you're good on the inbred part
Fair enough. And you're right, the confederate flag is used by a very vocal group as an ambiguous symbol of misunderstood history and hatred. I just get very resentful when people casually display such hateful and dismissive attitudes towards all southerners, It creates a lot of resentment for me being called inbred and backward despite the fact that I, and many southerners like me, agree with the moderate consensus.
Well, your location says "Not Arkansas" and "Not West Virginia" so you're good on the inbred part
Why are people screaming about 'revisionism'? If anything, the only revisionism is concieving of the CSA's political goals as anything but starting a war to preserve crushing another race under the boot of the ubermensch, even as evidenced by every state involved and multiple leaders.
When many, many, many official statements made by Confederate Leaders themselves and Confederate Governments makes it extremely clear that everything they did was in favor of maintaining something that we consider objectively evil, then how is the use of the flag 'misunderstood' in any way?
Yes, this is a rather blunt way to put it. But this thread's spinning in circles, without any 'flag supporter' addressing those issues of what the primary sources said and intended. You cannot both say 'But it is tradition!' as a defense of an already morally indefensible tradition.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I'm sorry, but changing the state flag isn't changing the culture. How many people, on a daily basis think about their state flag? That number is probably very few.
Especially considering the fact that state flags change. Since 2001, the state of Georgia has changed their flag three times.
Especially when southern descendants of confederate soldiers, don't think it's appropriate anymore, (if it ever was) to celebrate that part of our history. I can honor my ancestor in better ways.
Has nothing to do with "white guilt" or liberal brainwashing..I think anyone knows me on these boards, knows that I'm pretty conservative.
It's pretty insulting to be accused of being brainwashed, for trying suggest that we right an injustice, that has been going on too long.
generalgrog wrote: Especially when southern descendants of confederate soldiers, don't think it's appropriate anymore, (if it ever was) to celebrate that part of our history. I can honor my ancestor in better ways.
Has nothing to do with "white guilt" or liberal brainwashing..I think anyone knows me on these boards, knows that I'm pretty conservative.
It's pretty insulting to be accused of being brainwashed, for trying suggest that we right an injustice, that has been going on too long.
GG
And even with all that, I still haven't seen too many people stating outright "it should be banned forever!"
What I have seen:
It shouldn't be on a government building, excepting a museum or memorial. Old memorials constructed after the ACW should be left as is, there's no reason to spend the kind of money to "fix" an engraving or to reforge a metal plate, etc.
I'm sorry, but changing the state flag isn't changing the culture. How many people, on a daily basis think about their state flag? That number is probably very few.
Yes it is, the iconography of a culture is part of the culture. A culture cant be removed overnight, its a slow change, but the chwnge is no longer unthinkable so the threat of a cultural retcon is now real.
its a sudden large scale hysteria based refusal of sale, and taken to extremes. Withdrawal of actual flags from sale might make some sense, but software or books including the flag is not.
That last bit, you may have to reword, because I honestly don't know what you mean by "revisionism by the removal to host historical works which depict the flag even as a secondary element."
An example is software about the American civil war, which includes Confederate iconography casually due to its subject matten, withdrawn from sale.
I'm sorry, but changing the state flag isn't changing the culture. How many people, on a daily basis think about their state flag? That number is probably very few.
Yes it is, the iconography of a culture is part of the culture. A culture cant be removed overnight, its a slow change, but the chwnge is no longer unthinkable so the threat of a cultural retcon is now real.
its a sudden large scale hysteria based refusal of sale, and taken to extremes. Withdrawal of actual flags from sale might make some sense, but software or books including the flag is not.
That last bit, you may have to reword, because I honestly don't know what you mean by "revisionism by the removal to host historical works which depict the flag even as a secondary element."
An example is software about the American civil war, which includes Confederate iconography casually due to its subject matten, withdrawn from sale.
But none of those are retcons though... And as another user pointed out, apparently Georgia has changed their flag 3 times in the past few years.
The rest of that, again, removing flags T-shirts and such "celebratory" items makes sense, but we can agree that removing software and books just because they have it on the cover is an over-reaction, but that's all it is to me. I think that, once things settle down, and people move on to the next great outrage, you'll start seeing sellers like Amazon reintroduce books, movies and such with the Confederate flag on their cover to the market, but after they've done a review of the material (even if it's just a simple check of the title)
Orlanth wrote: Progressivism is the main brainwash agenda right now, if this is anyway unclear look at how it is used by student mobs, or at theslow march to cultural disintegration in Sweden.
There's certainly a cultural disintegration going on in Sweden; we're becoming more aware of the fact that we're not as good or not-racist as our self-image during the 1970's and 80's would have us believe. Our self-righteousness is being picked apart, piece by piece.
How very progressive. The solution must be more progressivism.
Of course, that's not what you meant at all, so I'm going to ask you: in what manner do you believe that there is a "cultural disintegration" going on in Sweden?
Off topic reply below.
Spoiler:
1. Islamic apologists are bending over backwards. Crime, particularly sex crimes against women is way up with a very disproportional percentage due to Islamic minority.
Radical Islamic culture is short on gender equality, and demonstrate this point on vulnerable women with alarming frequency.
http://www.infowars.com/feminists-mute-on-muslim-rape-epidemic-sweeping-europe/ http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape SWEDEN
Since it embraced multiculturalism in 1975, Sweden has become the rape capital of the west, with only the tiny African nation of Lesotho recording more sexual assaults.
Rapes in Sweden have skyrocketed by a shocking 1,472% since the mid-70’s, with 6,620 sexual assaults being reported to police in 2014 compared to just 421 in 1975.
“77.6 percent of the country’s rapists are identified as “foreigners” (and that’s significant because in Sweden, “foreigner” is generally synonymous with “immigrant from Muslim country”), writes Selwyn Duke. “And even this likely understates the issue, since the Swedish government — in an effort to obscure the problem — records second-generation Muslim perpetrators simply as “Swedes.”
Duke cites a report by the aforementioned Lars Hedegaard and his colleague Ingrid Carlqvist, two journalists who documented, “A new trend (that) reached Sweden with full force over the past few decades: gang rape — virtually unknown before in Swedish criminal history. The number of gang rapes increased spectacularly between 1995 and 2006. Since then no studies of them have been undertaken.”
Authorities have failed to properly investigate the rape epidemic over fears of offending ‘multicultural’ sensitivities – as happened in Rotherham.
“In cases of gang rape, culprits and victims are most often young and in almost every case, the perpetrators are of immigrant background, mostly from Muslim countries. In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists. Several times the courts have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted sex with six, seven or eight men,” states the report.
Just as in Denmark, authorities came down harder on those blowing the whistle on the Muslim rape epidemic than those actually perpetrating the assaults.
“A local Sweden Democrat Party politician named Michael Hess was convicted of the hate-speech charge “denigration of ethnic groups” for making his claim,” writes Duke. “It didn’t matter that he has lived in Muslim countries and that at his trial he presented evidence on the Sharia law position on rape; the court claimed, reports Dispatch International, “that the question of whether or not Michael Hess’s pronouncement is true, or appeared to be true to Michael Hess, has no bearing on the case.”
News outlets in Sweden also routinely fail to report the ethnicity of accused rapists, referring to them only as “Swedes”.
The nly good news about Swedish rape statistics is that when Swedish Islamic immigrants cross the border nd rape in Norway the statistics report it properly.
2. Jews are leaving the country as they don't feel safe there anymore, and its their own fault according to some Swedish progressive polticians.
Now I am no fan of Israel, and criticise Zionism vehemently, but I dont tolerate anti-semintism, though some Zionists fail to understand the distinction.
Swedish officials went as far as to blame Swedens Jews for the rise of anti-semitic attacks in Sweden because of events happening in another country. As Jews they are collectively responsible.
Normally gross anti-Semitism is a fair sign of bigotry and racism, fair call, fair cop, however because the outrage has a politically correct source, its progressive and just.
Somehow the progressivism brainwashed Swedes dont see anything wrong with this type of commentary. Anywhere else he would be censured. However he is still in office.
3. In your progressive paradise of a country no-go areas are spreading.
This needs repeating:
"There's certainly a cultural disintegration going on in Sweden; we're becoming more aware of the fact that we're not as good or not-racist as our self-image during the 1970's and 80's would have us believe. Our self-righteousness is being picked apart, piece by piece." You wer probably actually less brainwashed inthe 70's, Swedisr self righeousness is right now. Its based on an unshkable faith in progressivism which lets Sweden down on every turn.
You have a more equal society, with violent crime increasingly considerably, with ethnic no go areas being common, and a conspiracy of embarassed silience from polticiians who just hope it all just goes away if they stick heads in sand.
Sweden's problem is that because it is used to being a civilised country they don't know how to respond when a large minority influx with a sizable extremist element tries to turn the nation into a toilet. So the answer is to ignore the problem, and to decry any critique, no matter how well documented as lies.
The rest of that, again, removing flags T-shirts and such "celebratory" items makes sense, but we can agree that removing software and books just because they have it on the cover is an over-reaction, but that's all it is to me. I think that, once things settle down, and people move on to the next great outrage, you'll start seeing sellers like Amazon reintroduce books, movies and such with the Confederate flag on their cover to the market, but after they've done a review of the material (even if it's just a simple check of the title)
But what's gone is gone.
It makes the national heritage, something intended to last, very unstable indeed, and unable to survive even the medium term..
Because the next trend appears and more is nibbled away, a bad precedent.
Linking to Gatestone, a well known zionist and anti-muslim group, Alex Jones of all fething people, the Sweden Report which literally lied about the contents of a police report, yeah, expected.
But what's gone is gone.
It makes the national heritage, something intended to last, very unstable indeed, and unable to survive even the medium term..
Because the next trend appears and more is nibbled away, a bad precedent.
What about this is exactly 'destroying heritage'? All the information, the details, people, places and symbols will be available and are not being changed from history. What'd be changing is the celebration of it all.
And know what? Cultures change. Tradition is not sacred or holy, especially not when it's a tradition of systematic brutality and destruction of fellow human beings. There is no difference between removing a Confederate symbol from off government buildings than there is removing Nazi ones from German buildings.
If anything, destroying heritage occurs in the revisionist apologism that paints the Southern cause as even remotely noble, when it's in reality, as evidenced by the people who planned it, basically starting a war to preserve their financial interests and hate at the sufference of huge swathes of their own human population. I can see the real reasons to memorialize the loss of life, but at no point was the cause ever just.
But what's gone is gone.
It makes the national heritage, something intended to last, very unstable indeed, and unable to survive even the medium term..
Because the next trend appears and more is nibbled away, a bad precedent.
What about this is exactly 'destroying heritage'? All the information, the details, people, places and symbols will be available and are not being changed from history. What'd be changing is the celebration of it all.
And know what? Cultures change. Tradition is not sacred or holy, especially not when it's a tradition of systematic brutality and destruction of fellow human beings. There is no difference between removing a Confederate symbol from off government buildings than there is removing Nazi ones from German buildings.
Where to begin with the above.
First the Confederate were not comperable to the Nazis, and they were morally closer their adversaries than the Nazis were (excepting the Soviets).
Second heritage is being destroyed. Flags are being removed, statues are due to be relocated if some leaders get rhier way, flags changed. Permanent memorials altered.
Also artwork and historical tools are being withdrawn software accredited as historically accurate is being withdrawn because it includes Confederate iconography, denying a point of access to the information. And you need edited history like a hole in the head.
If anything, destroying heritage occurs in the revisionist apologism that paints the Southern cause as even remotely noble, when it's in reality, as evidenced by the people who planned it, basically starting a war to preserve their financial interests and hate at the sufference of huge swathes of their own human population. I can see the real reasons to memorialize the loss of life, but at no point was the cause ever just.
That is anything but helpful. If there is healing to be don after a century and a half people need to get over it. Jefferson Davis is not going to rise from the grave and put chains on blacks. Its history, the past.
If revisionism is required to heal then there is something wrong with the process.
a healthy historical detachment is advised.
In The UK we have a very long and bloody history. You can visit sites of massacres and evil deeds, we don't hide it, and we aren't uncomfortable about it. Because we developed the ability move on.
The Lancastrians and Yorkists slaughtered each other, its just history, there are no regional hatreds Catholic and protestant fought bitter wars, who cares.
Ireland never moved on. They still have vendettas reaching back the best part of a thousand years, and it poisons the people still.
The US inherited our cultural resilience, it helped the country to move on after the American civil war, now its regressing digging up old histories and seeing them as unwelcome icons.
America needs to be in a place where waving the Confederate and Union symbols is a bit of fun, a look at the past and an interesting period of American history as waving our own belligerent symbols are to us.
The last thing you need is progressive nincompoops asking America to self flagellate over the Confederacy a century and a half later, and making anon issue into a hate issue. Because at that point atonement might appear to be the issue, but in actuality it becomes a resource pot that wont go away so long as there is political mileage on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Linking to Gatestone, a well known zionist and anti-muslim group, Alex Jones of all fething people, the Sweden Report which literally lied about the contents of a police report, yeah, expected.
I multiple sourced the specific info that was covered in Gatestone. Multiple sourcing is good cover, you should make comment on that.
That is anything but helpful. If there is healing to be don after a century and a half people need to get over it.
The last thing you need is progressive nincompoops asking America to self flagellate over the Confederacy a century and a half later, and making anon issue into a hate issue.
150 years? you seem to have missed the evidence of racism being a problem in the US this year. You also seem to have missed that after the civil war no one really cared about that flag until around 1950 when the KKK claimed it and brought it back to fight against the idea of ending segregation. that started just 60 years ago and they are still causing trouble today.
Then in case you missed it, someone associated with the KKK and their flag killed 9 people a few days ago.
What you need to answer is why does that flag belong over a federal or state building? 17 pages in, and no one has yet put forth a valid reason for it to be at a state building.
150 years? you seem to have missed the evidence of racism being a problem in the US this year. You also seem to have missed that after the civil war no one really cared about that flag until around 1950 when the KKK claimed it and brought it back to fight against the idea of ending segregation. that started just 60 years ago and they are still causing trouble today.
The Confederacy was long ago. The KKK are just a few nutcases that represent no one but themselves, and should be ignored or treated like any other criminal gang dependant on what they do.
What you need to answer is why does that flag belong over a federal or state building? 17 pages in, and no one has yet put forth a valid reason for it to be at a state building.
Orlanth, you say progressivism as if it is a bad thing. How can you say that an ideal based on progress is bad?
Lets look at the definition on Wikipedia:
Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[1] Sociologist Robert Nisbet defines five "crucial premises" of the Idea of Progress as being: value of the past, nobility of Western civilization, worth of economic/technological growth, faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason, intrinsic importance and worth of life on earth.
Now, with the exception of the whole "Nobility of western civilization" bit, I'd say that's a pretty good set of ideals. So what exactly is your dislike of humanity improving itself based on reason?
Also Orlanth, does that little report of yours mention that Sweden has very broad rape laws which results in more crimes being classified as rape than many other western nations? Or did you forget about that?
150 years? you seem to have missed the evidence of racism being a problem in the US this year. You also seem to have missed that after the civil war no one really cared about that flag until around 1950 when the KKK claimed it and brought it back to fight against the idea of ending segregation. that started just 60 years ago and they are still causing trouble today.
The Confederacy was long ago. The KKK are just a few nutcases that represent no one but themselves, and should be ignored or treated like any other criminal gang dependant on what they do.
What you need to answer is why does that flag belong over a federal or state building? 17 pages in, and no one has yet put forth a valid reason for it to be at a state building.
It's part of the cultural heritage of the state.
So are the flags of africa, lets hang them on the capital as well then. Then a few nascar flags as well.
It's not a state flag, it's not the american flag, to put any other flags up is unamerican and dishonoring the curltural heritage of the states.
It's not a state flag, it's not the american flag, to put any other flags up is unamerican and dishonoring the curltural heritage of the states.
So says the dogmatised progressive. However the Confederacy is de facto a part of the culture of eleven states of the US. It is relevant to their heritage and shouldn't be airbrushed out.
Nascar flags aren't the same.
Confederate flags in say Maine might be a bad idea, but in say Alabama it is local colour.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Orlanth, you say progressivism as if it is a bad thing. How can you say that an ideal based on progress is bad?
Its newspeak taing a wholesome word and hijacking it. You ca also progress towards destruction, progress just means moving forward, which might not be a journey of improvement.
Progressivism is self labelled though and has positive overtones, which are part of the propaganda core of the progressive movement.
As a title progressivism has a lot in common with communist ideology. The 'Great Leap Forward' may sound grand, but it was just the title of a centralised government initiative that conpounded totalitarian control and human misery.
Also Orlanth, does that little report of yours mention that Sweden has very broad rape laws which results in more crimes being classified as rape than many other western nations? Or did you forget about that?
An excuse used to belittle the figures, even with that in account the statistics are alarmingly high, and have grown by a massive proportion without a change in classification in the age of mass Islamic immigration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strombones wrote: Flying a NASCAR flag from the statehouse is the most American thing EVER.
Orlanth wrote: This is where reading posts properly would help your understanding.
My entire argument is about not judging the nations of the past by 21st century standards.
There is a modern connotation on people saying the 'Confederacy was evil', and pointing out that the South for the most part was commanded and fought honourably does matter.
Please read my post again, and this time read more carefully, and if I haven’t been clear somewhere then ask for clarification. I’m happy to admit that I don’t always write as clearly as possible. But your effort here to pretend I didn’t understand your point is woeful.
If you want a tldr version – the argument that soldiers fought bravely therefore the South wasn’t evil is ridiculous, because individual moral actors do not justify the structure of a whole nation.
Yes the Confederacy had a slave economy, both parts of the US had a stolen land economy, and practiced genocide of native peoples to claim that land. As Native American rights were so far off the map, even when some rights for blacks were emerging.
The hard reality was that the Confederacy as alike to all the other colonial civilizations of the 19th century. They took form peoples they believed inferior. If one is judgeable as evil, why not the others.
Because of scale, both in the numbers of people affected, and the nature of the mistreatment. Seriously, this is so basic, and you’re not dumb. It is nasty and immoral to both force someone off their land and to hold them as slaves, but the latter is very obviously much, much worse. Seriously, this is so basic, and you’re not dumb, so while I don’t know why you’re choosing not to understand these things, I can only ask that you stop.
This was a colonial era and the Confederacy as morally a product of its time, it wasn't morally on a lower par to contemporary nation states except in terms of propaganda persisting erroneously to the present day.
Actually it was pretty unconscionable even to the people of the time. Hence the whole abolitionist movement.
It fairly well sums up the Victorian mindset frankly, and generalisations are in order to put the point across.
Oh I’m sure it was a general belief of people at the time. But you know, just ‘coz you believe it, doesn’t make it so. Which you concede later on, when acknowledging their moralism was clearly selective.
What you are describing is historical culture. It's one of the reasons why flying the Confederate flag should be ok. It's a cultural root, people should be able to say 'this is my ancestry, this is my heritage',
without label.
If states with French heritage flew the French flag, and states with British heritage flew either the St George’s Cross or the Union Jack then you’d have a point. Of if these states flew any of the other battle flags of the confederacy. But they don’t. They fly the flag that was used as a symbol by the KKK. Pretending that it’s purely about history is absurd.
Orlanth wrote: If you believe what you wrote then the veiled guilt chain is there. How its there has explained, the fact that the need to be 'considerate' and 'mindful' is selective burden on some societal groups but not others.
Okay so to spell it out, you believe that I'm saying white people should be considerate to non-whites but that non-whites should not be considerate of whites? Or is it even further, that in your experience, you believe that non-whites are not considerate of whites?
It kinda looks that way.
When you said "We were born in racism", or something to that effect.. were you implying that we have a genetic disposition to distrust unlike colors? I remember a study that showed toddlers of around age 2 begin to understand a racial identity by at least color and accent, and if given the chance, will work together by groups. I personally think it had more to do with feeling safety in "like kind."
But when you say "Naw, were a racist society, and as racists all we should learn how to at least be polite about it, I think it's definite pessimism in the least and guilt mongering at the worst. To imply that because our great great grandfathers were among slave-owners, therefor we cannot help but be racists due to knowing "we used to own them.", is a broad sweeping generalization. Never once have I thought, "Man, gak would be better if I could just own black people. Then I could stop a lot of the violent crime in my poor neighborhood and reduce gang presence."
And yea, in my own anecdotal experience, it's entirely fine and acceptable for outright open hostility towards whites for no reason other than being white. What's worse, is the media and society refuse to label black hate crimes as hate crimes. If racism is talked about for real, then we need to get past sensitivity issues and point out that gak goes both ways.
Spoiler:
This sight may have neutrality issues, but raises a strong point. The VASTLY higher numbers for black on white crime in relation to the other way around.
Also, he calls it a Victorian mindset yet by the time of the American Civil War the UK had already abolished slavery in all of the Empire for 20 years and slavery in the British Isles themselves for over 50. Not to mention that Britain was active in encouraging other countries to do the same, with use of the Royal Navy to intercept slave ships.
@Orlanth, my post about moral relativism was not aimed at you, but if you see it as such, feel free. And it was not an ad hominem unless you feel either moral relativism or moral absolutism are somehow slanders as opposed to descriptors (I personally don't, in either case)
Just so I know where you stand on the issue in the future, are you a moral relativist? Or do you side with the belief that in the Savior's words the Soviet Union was an "evil empire"? Or do you want to equivocate on that one?
Thunderfrog wrote: When you said "We were born in racism", or something to that effect.. were you implying that we have a genetic disposition to distrust unlike colors?
What did I post that led you to think I was only talking about white Americans?
Thunderfrog wrote: When you said "We were born in racism", or something to that effect.. were you implying that we have a genetic disposition to distrust unlike colors?
What did I post that led you to think I was only talking about white Americans?
The quote doesn't match your question?
Anyways, please answer mine and I will answer yours.
To be honest, it was nothing you said specifically, but your general tone. I suppose it (your tone) rings similar to those who in conversation have told me that -only- whites can be racist, and that what whites perceive as "reverse racism" is not anything but us being too sensitive and terrified of losing our racist power.
To requote my question.
When you said "We were born in racism", or something to that effect.. were you implying that we have a genetic disposition to distrust unlike colors, or it's a social sickness that no one can avoid?
This is also why countries like England and France were circling like buzzards, waiting to see how things would shake up.
Thats kind of historically inaccurate. All the European nations took interest in the ACW, because it was being fought in a very different manner from the most recent European wars. Slavery was politically repulsive to both England and France, and public opinion in both tended to favor the Union (although the political elite tended to be more favorable to the CSA). In regards to cotton, the war did cause a brief cotton famine that effected the textile industry in both countries, but they had found alternative sources for the white stuff within a year of the commencement of hostilities and were no longer dependent on american product (which is perhaps part of the reason why the southern economy lagged post-war).
We have many sources that show that both France and England were having debates as to whether they should aid one side or another. Apparently the CSA went so far as to actually ask France for aid. I probably made a bit of a logical jump there... But in my eyes, I think both England and France, while actually "quietly viewing" what was going on, were actually hoping for an opening to regain lost lands. Again, it's just a thought, and I don't particularly have documentation beyond the fact that they were keeping a keen eye on proceedings.
Having actually studied it pretty extensively myself, I can tell you that you're attributing far more to it than what occurred historically. France and England both declared neutrality in the conflict. The French did inform the Brits that if the Brits were to intervene, the French would support them in it, but realistically that was never going to happen, aside from the fact that Britain wanted no part in events, France had gotten itself rather tied up in Mexico at the time (and had temporarily dragged Spain and England into things with them) and wouldnt have had the capability of getting involved with the ACW anyway. The closest things ever came to intervention was the Trent affair, which essentially provided Britain with a legitimate casus belli, which they very clearly did not take.
nkelsch wrote: Stop calling the the confederate flag "stars and bars".
It is the southern cross. Stars and bars is a totally different flag which looks nothing like the confederate battle flag with the southern cross on it.
Appropriating historical references of the "stars and bars" to the "southern cross" is inaccurate and is totally invalid for discussing the racial overtones of the southern cross.
I was referring to the stars and bars, as was the thread for the most part, we are right to do so.
- It is a genuine Confederate flag.
- It is the most widely known Confederate flag.
- It is a valid symbol of the Confederacy.
- It is the flag most often seen in popular culture and modern culture relating to states that once made up the Confederacy.
- It is the flag highlighted in current press controversy.
- It was not the formal national flag of the Confederate States of America.
Bro thats not the stars and bars.
THAT is the stars and bars. The only people that think the stars and bars are the other flag are people who couldnt be bothered to pay attention in history class (read: most people).
Can I take a stab at this?
I get what you're saying... I think... about the "USA is living in a racist society".
It's the word racist I think incurs very strong emotional defensive response.
How about saying, we're living in a hyphenated society.
African-American
Asian-American
Indian-American
Cuban-American
Mexican-American
and what have yous...
I think, in a roundabout way, you're saying that because we do this, we're self-segregating ourselves in a way that can be a challenge to fully assimilate.
Because, at the end of the day, we ALL should be saying that we're just AMERICANS.
Oddly enough, if you ask most peopel "what are you" they will tell you "Chinese" or "Italian" or "German and Irish", etc. but if you ask a black person (that isn't a recent immigrant) they will tell you that they're American.... just chew on that for a whiel.
Oddly enough, if you ask most peopel "what are you" they will tell you "Chinese" or "Italian" or "German and Irish", etc. but if you ask a black person (that isn't a recent immigrant) they will tell you that they're American.... just chew on that for a whiel.
That's really sad when you think about it though. All the other races can trace their history back to their country of origin, going back hundreds of years. Because of slavery blacks can only trace their roots back to their first slave ancestors in america, and I doubt they could even go that far back.
The south so proud of their heritage destroyed the heritage of their slaves.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. When I was young the flag was a symbol of rebellion, of home. Had it not been for the KLan and the wackjobs it would have really been that.
But its not. The flag has become a symbol of racism.
The flag has always been a symbol of racism. It wasn't the KKK who marched under the flag in a literal war against freedom and against democracy, it was the Confederates.
No, it absolutely was not. There is much more to the topic than the revisionist history of it being all about slavery. It was much more about economics and the fact that the southern economy depended on slavery and Northern banks held huge financial sway over them, despite the fact that the South grew one of the most vital resources of the time (cotton). Read up on the Southern Commercial Convention.
Do you think that you know better than the people that fought the war what is was over? Somewhere around 20% of southerners owned slaves and would not fight for a rich man's property. In turn when the Emancipation Proclamation was announced there were anti-black riots in the North that saw many hung in the streets and even orphanages burned to the ground. To those of the time, it was about the separation of the United States. Though, I won't argue that Slavery was a major part of it, don't kid yourself into thinking that the South was only concerned with subjugation while the North were freedom fighters. After all, Robert E Lee considered slavery evil, while McClellan hated blacks. And, even the great Emancipator himself allowed for horrendous treatment of Native Americans that included them being sold into slavery in Mexico.
The point is, this issue is far too complex to try and make blanket, black and white statements, and people aren't taught the truth of the matter because history is written by the victors. As to the issue of the flag, even though I love history, it is a symbol of separation at the least and therefore does not need to be flown on government property. Believing that everyone who takes pride in the flag is a racist though is just pure bigotry that's just as ugly as those who judge people by the color of their skin. Don't forget that we are a nation born of traitors and rebels.
Now back to what I come to the forums for...gaming.
Oddly enough, if you ask most peopel "what are you" they will tell you "Chinese" or "Italian" or "German and Irish", etc. but if you ask a black person (that isn't a recent immigrant) they will tell you that they're American.... just chew on that for a whiel.
That's really sad when you think about it though. All the other races can trace their history back to their country of origin, going back hundreds of years. Because of slavery blacks can only trace their roots back to their first slave ancestors in america, and I doubt they could even go that far back.
The south so proud of their heritage destroyed the heritage of their slaves.
It's sad but not unique. How many people from any African tribes (slave or not) could trace ancestry (DNA could probably do it) from more than two hundred years ago?
sebster wrote:
If states with French heritage flew the French flag, and states with British heritage flew either the St George’s Cross or the Union Jack then you’d have a point. Of if these states flew any of the other battle flags of the confederacy. But they don’t. They fly the flag that was used as a symbol by the KKK. Pretendi
FYI: Oklahona used to have all the flags that have ever flown over the land hanging at the plaza in front of the Capitol. One of them was the battle flag of the confederacy. There has always been talk about it and the flag was taken down back in 1998 I think. After lots of arguments the governor ordered the flags of all countries taken down and just put an Oklahoma flag on each flag pole. A few years later the Oklahoma History Center opened next to the Capitol and they included an area for all the flags there and at that time they also chose the Stars and Bars to represent the time the confederacy claimed parts of the state instead of using the battle flag.
Just throwing it out there to share how Oklahoma handled the flying of flags for historical/heritage reasons.
Manchu wrote: Nothing I have posted merits that question. My posts obviously refer to all Americans. Somehow you yourself read white guilt into what posted..
I disagree, but you've established yourself as unmoving and stand-offish, and I think you are just skimming. My question to you had nothing to do with color specifically.
You said "Everyone in this country is racist because we are born that way."
That VERY much triggers the question, why?
Do you think it's a hereditary function of choosing like kinds, or do you think it's a societal issue no one can be above?
d-usa wrote: FYI: Oklahona used to have all the flags that have ever flown over the land hanging at the plaza in front of the Capitol. One of them was the battle flag of the confederacy. There has always been talk about it and the flag was taken down back in 1998 I think. After lots of arguments the governor ordered the flags of all countries taken down and just put an Oklahoma flag on each flag pole. A few years later the Oklahoma History Center opened next to the Capitol and they included an area for all the flags there and at that time they also chose the Stars and Bars to represent the time the confederacy claimed parts of the state instead of using the battle flag.
Just throwing it out there to share how Oklahoma handled the flying of flags for historical/heritage reasons.
d-usa wrote: FYI: Oklahona used to have all the flags that have ever flown over the land hanging at the plaza in front of the Capitol. One of them was the battle flag of the confederacy. There has always been talk about it and the flag was taken down back in 1998 I think. After lots of arguments the governor ordered the flags of all countries taken down and just put an Oklahoma flag on each flag pole. A few years later the Oklahoma History Center opened next to the Capitol and they included an area for all the flags there and at that time they also chose the Stars and Bars to represent the time the confederacy claimed parts of the state instead of using the battle flag.
Just throwing it out there to share how Oklahoma handled the flying of flags for historical/heritage reasons.
Welcome to America, where National history can be rewritten or repressed if enough people want it to happen, or at least don't care enough to stop it from happening. All this crap like the moves by Apple and Amazon makes me sick.
Good god, pretty soon it will be like in Interstellar, where in the future school teachers will actually teach as part of their curriculum about how the Moon Landing was a propaganda lie by the evil folks at NASA and the government as part of the Cold War.
Manchu wrote:
... We started forming a racist mindset in the crib. When we look at each other, we can't help but see race and not just as some neutral social fact but with all the attendant prejudices. We need to be a bit self-aware and self-critical about these notions we've inherited from our forbears and that we pick up as we live our lives. Overcoming our racism is not about feeling guilty; it's about being mindful and considerate and reflective.
So, again, in genuine curiosity...
Do you think we are born racists, or do you think it's something we cannot help but learn because of growing up in such a racist society, and it is something no one can escape.
From SD here, Mt. Rushmore has only flown the fifty states. Crazy Horse (which ever completed, will be the most amazing statue ever known to humanity, seriously guys, check it out. It dwarfs Rushmore). We are late to the political heritage party; nonetheless, last time I was in Nashville, I got called aYankee. Forget the fact that we didn't even exist yet. He did like Sturgis though.
There is no way a reasonable, educated person could confuse the notion of forming a racist mindset with a genetic issue.
What I posted remains clear: we live in a thoroughly racist society and for that reason cannot help but have a racist mindset.
From that point, you and Orlanth went on a tirade about white guilt ... which didn't have anything to do with what I said. But it is pretty telling, I think, that you assume the suggestion that people be considerate and reflective is somehow anti-white or that it wouldn't apply to non-whites.
d-usa wrote: FYI: Oklahona used to have all the flags that have ever flown over the land hanging at the plaza in front of the Capitol. One of them was the battle flag of the confederacy. There has always been talk about it and the flag was taken down back in 1998 I think. After lots of arguments the governor ordered the flags of all countries taken down and just put an Oklahoma flag on each flag pole. A few years later the Oklahoma History Center opened next to the Capitol and they included an area for all the flags there and at that time they also chose the Stars and Bars to represent the time the confederacy claimed parts of the state instead of using the battle flag.
Just throwing it out there to share how Oklahoma handled the flying of flags for historical/heritage reasons.
That's really cool, thanks for posting it.
That is because stars and bars actually represents the confederacy, and was what was used at the time. The southern cross was never raised as a symbol officially or unofficially as a symbol of the confederacy during the actual time period. The southern cross battle standard was used in a small number of battles as a battle standard so it would be visually distinguishable from Stars and Stripes. (The us flag at the time)
The southern cross was never a symbol of southern heritage, it has always from the onset been "the flag for the white man" and when Mississippi changed their state flag close to 40 years after the civil war ended to include thee southern cross, it was done to show blacks "remember who is in charge", and again during segregation as opposition to integration.
Funny how when Mississippi changed their flag to the southern cross, it was peachy, but to change away from it is destroying tradition?
Oklahoma has it right. The only flag which has ever stood for the confederacy and southern heritage has been stars and bars. To ignorantly misappropriate the legitimate legacy of stars and bars and attach it to the southern cross to legitimize its use is out of line and not supported by history, even if it is supported by modern day ignorance.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
I got to ask, is it your belief that non-whites cannot be racist?
Because La Raza and The Black Panther Party don't typically donate to GOP candidates.
La Raza isn't really a U.S. Institution.
But the TINY number of supporters in the USA have not contributed to political parties as a rule. Same thing with the Black Panthers.
Both collectively don't even make up a percentage of the numbers of White Supremacists.
PLUS... The Black Panthers and La Raza are, as a rule, NOT "Latin/Blaxk Supremacists." They have other issues which tend to be problematic.
Also, La Raza in Spain is just another White Supremacist group.
This is yet another attempt to point at an exception and try to make it a rule. It is sort of like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because someone once survived doing so.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: Stop calling the the confederate flag "stars and bars".
It is the southern cross. Stars and bars is a totally different flag which looks nothing like the confederate battle flag with the southern cross on it.
Appropriating historical references of the "stars and bars" to the "southern cross" is inaccurate and is totally invalid for discussing the racial overtones of the southern cross.
The Stars and Bars is just as reprehensible as is the cross.
Both are flags representing a traitorous regime who wished to own Black Men as slaved, which they saw as being "less than animals," and further claimed this as their divine, God-given right.
That makes either flag a symbol of an evil ideology.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: It's just a flag. It doesn't make anybody be or do anything.
People behaved differently, had different standards, morals, beliefs and knowledge in different eras. The Confederate flag shouldn't be flown over state and federal buildings because it's not longer a flag that represents a state or the nation. Private citizens can fly whatever flags they want for any reason they want. The mere symbol itself holds no meaning beyond what an individual ascribes to it.
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't an evil bigotted racist tv show just because Bo and Luke painted the battle flag on the roof of their car.
If we're going to get outraged over flags that were flown by people whose beliefs and actions we now find unacceptable we need to be upset over most of the flags that exist.
Japan committed horrible racist genocidal atrocities against civilians during WWII and evil war crimes against POWs. Should I be offended by Japan's flag? Does anyone who chooses to wear or fly that flag automatically give his/her tacit approval to the crimes committed under the auspices of that flag?
Flags are not JUST a "thing."
They are symbols, loaded with meaning.
Trying to pretend otherwise is willfully ignoring the definitions of words in common usage.
I've always just thought of the flag as being an easy visual identifier for the person you would most likely turn to if you need a pick up truck to tow you out of mud, or help with getting something blown up real good.
Surely there is an appropriate amount of time before you can stop feeling guilty about historical deeds? Everyone involved in the ACW is long since dead.
Do people understand that Cultural Relativism is a BAD THING?
There might be societies that have a variety of conditions that allow for human thriving, but this does NOT MEAN that ANYTHING is acceptable as a moral or ethical value, no matter how much of a population subscribes to it.
Some thing remain wrong regardless of when, where, how, or why they are done.
As modern people we recognise that slavery has always been a fundamental insult to humanity, whenever and wherever it was practised.
One can study history and recognise that in Roman times, slavery was a normal part of many societies and therefore we cannot condemn Romans by their own social standards for holding slaves. Even so, Roman attitudes towards slaves changed during their history and slaves gradually were granted more rights, showing that some kind of moral recognition of slaves as human beings was an element even of Roman society.
In the case of the Confederacy, as people have pointed out above, by mid-Victorian times slavery had already come to be seen as a moral evil by most advanced, "civilised" countries. The Confederate States had to do a lot of special pleading to justify their desire and need to continue with it. Therefore it would not be cultural relativism for 21st century people to blame the Confederates as slave-holders.
I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?
America has a capital city named after a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson was another slave owner, to name a few.
And what about Native Americans? If there's one group in US history that has arguably suffered more than African Americans, then its Native Americans.
I watched a BBC documentary on the subject and a lot of them consider these symbols to be offensive: Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the 2nd Infantry division, Chicago Blackhawks?? etc etc
They feel their culture is mocked and trivialised, as it has been depicted on everything from cigarette packets to chocolate bars.
And don't get them started on 1950s Westerns!!
Like I say, there a ton of symbols in modern America that can be seen as historically 'embarrassing.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: As modern people we recognise that slavery has always been a fundamental insult to humanity, whenever and wherever it was practised.
One can study history and recognise that in Roman times, slavery was a normal part of many societies and therefore we cannot condemn Romans by their own social standards for holding slaves. Even so, Roman attitudes towards slaves changed during their history and slaves gradually were granted more rights, showing that some kind of moral recognition of slaves as human beings was an element even of Roman society.
In the case of the Confederacy, as people have pointed out above, by mid-Victorian times slavery had already come to be seen as a moral evil by most advanced, "civilised" countries. The Confederate States had to do a lot of special pleading to justify their desire and need to continue with it. Therefore it would not be cultural relativism for 21st century people to blame the Confederates as slave-holders.
In Victorian times, they may have considered slavery a moral evil, but that didn't stop them from thinking they could lord it over Africans with colonialism, and when you consider some of the more bizarre theories the Victorians had on non-white people, I don't think they could take the moral high ground.
In Victorian times, they may have considered slavery a moral evil, but that didn't stop them from thinking they could lord it over Africans with colonialism, and when you consider some of the more bizarre theories the Victorians had on non-white people, I don't think they could take the moral high ground.
True, but that was neither the point made nor searched for.
This is getting daft now. Apple have removed any Historical strategy games from their store that feature the flag. Surely in the context of the actual Civil War the flag is perfectly appropriate? I don't see how anyone could object to this unless they wanted to indulge in sinister historical revisionism.
Strombones wrote: Flying a NASCAR flag from the statehouse is the most American thing EVER.
Only if you soaked it into an apple pie and then beat the gak out of it with a baseball bat.
Actually, scratch that. The most American thing EVER is football, because the rest of the world plays soccer and call it football .
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's certainly a cultural disintegration going on in Sweden;
You will be fine. You have Maddelisk. You can only be fine with Maddelisk .
Prestor Jon wrote: The Japanese committed atrocities against Americans under that flag, I have relatives and friends' relatives that wre maimed and killed by them. The US govt locked up Americans of Japanese heritage in internment camps and confiscated their property. Yet after the war we managed to move on and didn't need to use public shaming and peer pressure to dissuade anyone from owning or displaying a Japanese flag.
Orlanth wrote: First the Confederate were not comperable to the Nazis
These are pretty interesting. Notice how Imperial Japan was certainly not friendly to U.S. soldiers, yet they never actually set foot in the U.S. to do anything like the terrible, terrible crimes they committed against the civil populations of Korea, China, …
Holding an Imperial Japanese flag in Korea or China will be much, much more controversial there.
Similarly, the slavery as it was done in the U.S. was really a gruesome, terrible thing that, yes, was comparable what the Nazis and Imperial Japan did in term of dehumanization. It was not the same, but definitely comparable. I think quite a few people in this discussion are seeing the Confederate battle flag in the same way they see the Imperial Japan flag, i.e. we should recognize it as the symbol of a valiant enemy. Not in the same way as most Koreans or Chinese peoples see the Imperial Japan, i.e. as the symbol of an obscene regime that committed countless atrocities.
And even Japan, who does not rank very high on the war crimes penance (certainly way below Germany at least), understood they had to change their flag after the war. The South should find itself a new flag, one not associated with crimes against humanity.
Kilkrazy wrote: As modern people we recognise that slavery has always been a fundamental insult to humanity, whenever and wherever it was practised.
One can study history and recognise that in Roman times, slavery was a normal part of many societies and therefore we cannot condemn Romans by their own social standards for holding slaves. Even so, Roman attitudes towards slaves changed during their history and slaves gradually were granted more rights, showing that some kind of moral recognition of slaves as human beings was an element even of Roman society.
In the case of the Confederacy, as people have pointed out above, by mid-Victorian times slavery had already come to be seen as a moral evil by most advanced, "civilised" countries. The Confederate States had to do a lot of special pleading to justify their desire and need to continue with it. Therefore it would not be cultural relativism for 21st century people to blame the Confederates as slave-holders.
Replace slavery with "murder and rape" and you will understand that just because it was OK with them did not make it OK as a rule.
Or, replace "Romans" with "Third Reich" and "Slavery" with "Killing Jews......"
Slavery was still wrong, even though it was widely practiced and accepted by the Romans.
All this means is that the Romans sucked at being able to maximize the potential of their population, because they were ethically monsters, still.
Their "practices," no matter how broadly accepted, caused horrific suffering to most of the population, including the slave owners.
This was the basic message of The Enlightenment. And the whole "Cultural Relativism" package (along with Post-Modernism, which spawned it) is simply a Reactinary Philosophy that came about due to people being unable to cope with the realities that Industrialization brought about (and the belief that The Enlightenment was essentially a failed concept).
Moral absolutism does not mean that there is a list of morals that are absolutely right, it means that there is a list of absolutely wrong things. This is where the Moral Absolutists of the various religious ideologies diverge from reality and lack any foundation from the Moral Absolutists of Modern Philosophy that recognize a variety of means for human well-being and thriving, yet also recognize that some things are simply excluded (Absolutely) from the list of things that allow humanity to thrive. One claims absolute prescriptions, while the only claims absolute proscriptions. The former is flawed, and without foundation, while the latter IS the foundation.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: Japan never changed their flag... it has been the red dot thing since before and after the war.
The flag you are thinking of was the flag of the imperial army, they still use one very similar it's just not centered.
Nope.
Prior to the War it was a Red Dot with streaming Rays coming from it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?
Obviously we will cross the bridges if and when we come to them.
This is getting daft now. Apple have removed any Historical strategy games from their store that feature the flag. Surely in the context of the actual Civil War the flag is perfectly appropriate? I don't see how anyone could object to this unless they wanted to indulge in sinister historical revisionism.
Apple have taken a quick, easy way out of the controversy. Either they will restore the games later, after reconsidering the situation, or the publishers will have to update them with revised content (it's not a big change for an online game.)
Obviously the first option is the best, to maintain historical accuracy.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?
America has a capital city named after a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson was another slave owner, to name a few.
And what about Native Americans? If there's one group in US history that has arguably suffered more than African Americans, then its Native Americans.
I watched a BBC documentary on the subject and a lot of them consider these symbols to be offensive: Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the 2nd Infantry division, Chicago Blackhawks?? etc etc
They feel their culture is mocked and trivialised, as it has been depicted on everything from cigarette packets to chocolate bars.
And don't get them started on 1950s Westerns!!
Like I say, there a ton of symbols in modern America that can be seen as historically 'embarrassing.
Are you really that blind to the intentions and philosophical foundations of the various agencies at question here:
• The Confederacy: Founded on the idea that all men are NOT EQUAL; that some men are granted superiority by GOD over all others,and that some THINGS that only look like men (but are actually less than "animals") must be placed under the complete dominion of "Human Beings" (this is read by the Confederacy as "White men from Europe Only") in the institution of perpetual slavery; that "Human beings" have SOME RIGHTS (dictated by their God given status. Rich people have been blessed by God, and are those his "chosen," deserving more rights, while the poor, being out of favor with God, deserve fewer rights), while "things" that just "look" like humans (and have Black Skin) have no rights at all.
The Confederacy COMPLETELY LIVED UP TO THEIR CLAIMS. I.e. They were completely evil in that regard.
• The USA (including Thomas Jefferson): Founded on the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.
The USA did not always live up to that intention, but the changes to our Constitution tend to reflect times when we realized "Oops! We F-Ed UP! We better change things to make it up to those we have wronged."
Are you REALLY unable to see a distinction between those two entities, and the philosophies behind them?
Because of scale, both in the numbers of people affected, and the nature of the mistreatment. Seriously, this is so basic, and you’re not dumb. It is nasty and immoral to both force someone off their land and to hold them as slaves, but the latter is very obviously much, much worse. Seriously, this is so basic, and you’re not dumb, so while I don’t know why you’re choosing not to understand these things, I can only ask that you stop.
Calling a nation state evil places a moral distinction between itself and others, especially when the case is a mopralistic high point by another culture.
Slavery was wrong, but so was colonialism. The Confederates were a symptom of the age.
Why that is not a tu quoque argument.
While other nations abuses do not excuse the Confederacy the Confederacy is being singled out as evil wheras their morality was at a par with others. The judgement is partisan, not absolute. While it would be logical to condemn all colonial powers including the Confederacy, this is not what history does, it picks and chooses for political ends.
Moral judgement of 19th century nation states is selective and arbitrary and on those grounds it is more moral and just not to condemn the Confederacy on the grounds that the finger pointing is political and has a hypocritical source which will not be placed under similiar scritiny and for whose benefit the scrutiny iwas and still is absent.
Spoiler:
This is compounded by complications of the time. Slavery can be 'justified' by literalist short reading of the Bible (i.e not looking for the actual meaning of a passage) and religious texts of the time. A deeper theological look at the Bible shows that it does not condone slavery, the Victorians were as a rule aware that the Bible is not a literalist document, but that requires a theological explanation which some societies of the time had grasped, but others had chosen not to see.
Due to the way societies worked in the 19th century a moral case for slavery could be made at face value, and often was.
Evil is a conscious choice, if people are indoctrinated into doing what some think as evil but they are taught as good, are they being evil? Its a deeper philosophical question.
The Confederacy had the same moral conundrums as ancient Rome: 'should an ethical and just master keep or free slaves?' It argues that slavery is morally wrong, but a kind master is sometimes better than freedom in poverty.
It would be naive to look at the Confederacy in those terms, but such were the sentiments of the time, and while that can be seen as a self delusion, it is a similiar self delusion as practiced by the US and other colonial powers in their thirst for expansion.
This is anything but a black and white issue (sic), its far more complex. A Confederate patriot, even a Confederate industrialist or plantation owner is on a moral par with their contemporaries in other nations of the time. Many believed in the justice of their cause, rough and smooth, in well intentioned terms; others less so.
It is wrong to look at this with 21st century eyes and say slavery = bad, colonial rape = not quite as bad. There is a slim kernel of truth to that, but its far from enough to pass a moral distinction.
Actually it was pretty unconscionable even to the people of the time. Hence the whole abolitionist movement.
A two dimensional view at best.
Some abolitionism is moral. Wilberforce for example led the British anti-slavery movement on erthical grounds. The British became vehement anti-slavers. However the clerics who started the moral movements for ethical ends were only a portion of the movement. Most abolitionist movements had other ends. The Royal Navy did not extend massive patrols and anti slavery operations because of innate goodness, they did so because it gutted Yankee trade in the Atlantic. As the British were at the time enslaving India there is no moral high ground there, no matter how many slave forts they burned and how many blacks they freed.
Also the British understood the difference between emancipation and freedom, and have for a long time. It was harshly practiced on them.
Likewise the Union were not abolitionist on point of principle but on point of advantage.
Spoiler:
Anglo Saxon culture was very free for the standards of the time, nobles governed and lived alongside their people in nordic fashion, yet Anglo Saxons as with most nordic cultures kept slaves, often as a by process of the judicial system. So nordic slavery was generally a criminal sentence. Looking at it this was it wasn't slavery as we know it. One of the first things
William of Normandy did was to abolish slavery in England. Is that an emancipation move? Not in the slightest, because he also imposed feudalism, which while not slavery made de facto salves of almost all the Anglo Saxons.
The above is just an example, it was not part of the face memory of the time, but it shows conveniently that a slave and a free culture are often just symantically different.
As a good example of this, when did blacks stop being second class citizens in the United States. You would be naive to claim that happened in 1863. African Americans like the Anglo Saxons have discovered that servitude extends in other ways. You cant however blame the Confederacy for that.
It fairly well sums up the Victorian mindset frankly, and generalisations are in order to put the point across.
Oh I’m sure it was a general belief of people at the time. But you know, just ‘coz you believe it, doesn’t make it so. Which you concede later on, when acknowledging their moralism was clearly selective.
The situation can be summed up as thus.
Confederate slavery is evil, says the Union. We will liberate.
Yet despite dispatching the Confederacy quickly in historical terms, giving a feth about anything resembling racial equality was not a priority for over a century afterwards. You cant blame the Confederacy for that, it no longer existed. The Union moral high ground was entirely false. Emancipation is somethign lip service was given to.
The British and the French both liberated slaves in Africa and abolished the salve trade within their Empires. Formally there was no slavery permitted in the British Empire. Anyone see the
error in that statement?
Yet to a Victorian it was entirely true, blacks would not be taken from homes put in chains and marched by slavers, that horror was spared them when the European colonial powers moved in. Instead they got to work on the colonial plantations erected by white Imperial masters on their own lands.
If states with French heritage flew the French flag, and states with British heritage flew either the St George’s Cross or the Union Jack then you’d have a point. Of if these states flew any of the other battle flags of the confederacy. But they don’t. They fly the flag that was used as a symbol by the KKK. Pretending that it’s purely about history is absurd.
It is anything but absurd. The Confederate Battle Flag was historical, as was the stars and bars, though the former is what we normally see. Yes the KKK decided to use it, but the KKK were post ACW, they were not around during the Confederacy but emerged afterwards.
It is ignorant to say the Confederate Battle flag is the flag of the KKK while denying that it was also the standard of the Army of Northern Virginia, its premiere and most historically important military formation, and also served the base of the revised national flag, twice.
It is clearly a case that the symbol is a genuine historical Confederate symbol, which is public domain and was used by the KKK amongst others, including the Democrats while campaigning to elect Clinton and Obama. It is highly selective to highlight one unofficial usage and claim it represents it all, even worse to deny its actual source.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?
America has a capital city named after a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson was another slave owner, to name a few.
And what about Native Americans? If there's one group in US history that has arguably suffered more than African Americans, then its Native Americans.
I watched a BBC documentary on the subject and a lot of them consider these symbols to be offensive: Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the 2nd Infantry division, Chicago Blackhawks?? etc etc
They feel their culture is mocked and trivialised, as it has been depicted on everything from cigarette packets to chocolate bars.
And don't get them started on 1950s Westerns!!
Like I say, there a ton of symbols in modern America that can be seen as historically 'embarrassing.
Are you really that blind to the intentions and philosophical foundations of the various agencies at question here:
• The Confederacy: Founded on the idea that all men are NOT EQUAL; that some men are granted superiority by GOD over all others,and that some THINGS that only look like men (but are actually less than "animals") must be placed under the complete dominion of "Human Beings" (this is read by the Confederacy as "White men from Europe Only") in the institution of perpetual slavery; that "Human beings" have SOME RIGHTS (dictated by their God given status. Rich people have been blessed by God, and are those his "chosen," deserving more rights, while the poor, being out of favor with God, deserve fewer rights), while "things" that just "look" like humans (and have Black Skin) have no rights at all.
The Confederacy COMPLETELY LIVED UP TO THEIR CLAIMS. I.e. They were completely evil in that regard.
• The USA (including Thomas Jefferson): Founded on
The USA did not always live up to that intention, but the changes to our Constitution tend to reflect times when we realized "Oops! We F-Ed UP! We better change things to make it up to those we have wronged."
the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.
Are you REALLY unable to see a distinction between those two entities, and the philosophies behind them?
MB
Strawman.
My points were dealing with the Native American issue and the use of symbols that feature them in a derogatory way.
Native Americans object to being called redskins, and yet, a prominent team from Washington is named just that.
I used the example of the Chicago Blackhawks earlier. The actions of a small segment of their fans ( 'blacking up' as Native Americans) wouldn't last five minutes in the UK.
To address your historical points, its fair to say that "the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc." would be better changed to the principle that SOME men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.
That better reflects historical accuracy.
Years ago, I was surprised to learn that the British army, during the revolution, freed thousands of slaves, used them in their army, and had the majority of Native Americans on their side. Stark contrast to what the Continental Army had.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
I got to ask, is it your belief that non-whites cannot be racist?
Because La Raza and The Black Panther Party don't typically donate to GOP candidates.
La Raza isn't really a U.S. Institution.
But the TINY number of supporters in the USA have not contributed to political parties as a rule. Same thing with the Black Panthers.
Both collectively don't even make up a percentage of the numbers of White Supremacists.
PLUS... The Black Panthers and La Raza are, as a rule, NOT "Latin/Blaxk Supremacists." They have other issues which tend to be problematic.
Also, La Raza in Spain is just another White Supremacist group.
This is yet another attempt to point at an exception and try to make it a rule. It is sort of like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because someone once survived doing so.
MB
Man you are a goal post stretching son of a gun.
Your post which I replied to was pretty clear, you stated: "IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP."
That is false. The NCLR (La Raza) sprung from the Chicano movement and has nothing in the context of my post to do with Spain, and I am pretty sure you're smart enough to know that. The SPLC calls the New Black Panther Party "The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."
Size of the organization has nothing to do with your original statement. The New Black Panthers with clubs 'guarding' a voting site in 2008 did not have a Klan equivalent. Sometimes an organization can have influence well beyond its size.
These are not 'exceptions that prove the rule'. They are examples that show you are talking from a position of ignorance.
I'll start off by saying that this entire post probably is off-topic, tangentially related to the topic because Orlanth's crusade against PC-ism seems based on misinformation.
Of course, that's not what you meant at all, so I'm going to ask you: in what manner do you believe that there is a "cultural disintegration" going on in Sweden?
Off topic reply below.
1. Islamic apologists are bending over backwards. Crime, particularly sex crimes against women is way up with a very disproportional percentage due to Islamic minority.
Radical Islamic culture is short on gender equality, and demonstrate this point on vulnerable women with alarming frequency.
That's so full of gak that I almost don't know where to begin, but I'll give it a shot anyway:
Starting off, the claim that 76% of sexual offenders in Sweden have a foreign background is simply stated as a fact. There's no source listed for it, and considering that official statistics don't take the ethnicity or nationality into account I'm going to call bullgak on that one.
Secondly, Sweden has one of the broadest definitions of rape in the world. Of bloody course there's going to be more reported rapes when the concept covers a bigger area. As such, comparisons between countries is very difficult, as the same concept means different things in different nations. You'd know this if you'd actually studied the topic instead of spouting partisan bullgak on Dakka all the time.
Now I am no fan of Israel, and criticise Zionism vehemently, but I dont tolerate anti-semintism, though some Zionists fail to understand the distinction.
Swedish officials went as far as to blame Swedens Jews for the rise of anti-semitic attacks in Sweden because of events happening in another country. As Jews they are collectively responsible.
Normally gross anti-Semitism is a fair sign of bigotry and racism, fair call, fair cop, however because the outrage has a politically correct source, its progressive and just.
Somehow the progressivism brainwashed Swedes dont see anything wrong with this type of commentary. Anywhere else he would be censured. However he is still in office.
.
He's no longer in office, and he caught a metric gak-ton of flak for what he said. I'm going to be generous and call that a case of you being misinformed rather than it being an outright lie.
3. In your progressive paradise of a country no-go areas are spreading.
This needs repeating:
"There's certainly a cultural disintegration going on in Sweden; we're becoming more aware of the fact that we're not as good or not-racist as our self-image during the 1970's and 80's would have us believe. Our self-righteousness is being picked apart, piece by piece." You wer probably actually less brainwashed inthe 70's, Swedisr self righeousness is right now. Its based on an unshkable faith in progressivism which lets Sweden down on every turn.
You have a more equal society, with violent crime increasingly considerably, with ethnic no go areas being common, and a conspiracy of embarassed silience from polticiians who just hope it all just goes away if they stick heads in sand.
The police never said there were any "no-go zones", so that's another instance of you being woefully ill-informed, at best, and spreading lies, at worst. What the report (in Swedish) said was that there are areas in Sweden where organized crime has a negative impact on the everyday lives of locals. The report further contains recommendations of how to reverse this development. The "no-go zone" part has, as far as I've been able to discern, been spread across the internet by people like yourself in order to advance your own agenda. That's dishonesty number three, out of three possible so far.
Sweden's problem is that because it is used to being a civilised country they don't know how to respond when a large minority influx with a sizable extremist element tries to turn the nation into a toilet. So the answer is to ignore the problem, and to decry any critique, no matter how well documented as lies.
Considering how poorly documented your other points were, I think it's pretty brave of you to call your points "well documented". I will, however, agree with you on the fact that there's, to some extent, a sort of tribalism to the debate climate (not just for journalists), where stepping out of line means that you get heavily criticized, but there's also a bunch of people that, such as yourself, clearly don't know how to source their material properly.
In summary: three blatantly misleading (or outright lying) points, and one where there could've actually been an interesting discussion if if weren't for the fact that you're spouting nonsense most of the time.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?
America has a capital city named after a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson was another slave owner, to name a few.
And what about Native Americans? If there's one group in US history that has arguably suffered more than African Americans, then its Native Americans.
I watched a BBC documentary on the subject and a lot of them consider these symbols to be offensive: Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the 2nd Infantry division, Chicago Blackhawks?? etc etc
They feel their culture is mocked and trivialised, as it has been depicted on everything from cigarette packets to chocolate bars.
And don't get them started on 1950s Westerns!!
Like I say, there a ton of symbols in modern America that can be seen as historically 'embarrassing.
Are you really that blind to the intentions and philosophical foundations of the various agencies at question here:
• The Confederacy: Founded on the idea that all men are NOT EQUAL; that some men are granted superiority by GOD over all others,and that some THINGS that only look like men (but are actually less than "animals") must be placed under the complete dominion of "Human Beings" (this is read by the Confederacy as "White men from Europe Only") in the institution of perpetual slavery; that "Human beings" have SOME RIGHTS (dictated by their God given status. Rich people have been blessed by God, and are those his "chosen," deserving more rights, while the poor, being out of favor with God, deserve fewer rights), while "things" that just "look" like humans (and have Black Skin) have no rights at all.
The Confederacy COMPLETELY LIVED UP TO THEIR CLAIMS. I.e. They were completely evil in that regard.
• The USA (including Thomas Jefferson): Founded on
The USA did not always live up to that intention, but the changes to our Constitution tend to reflect times when we realized "Oops! We F-Ed UP! We better change things to make it up to those we have wronged."
the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.
Are you REALLY unable to see a distinction between those two entities, and the philosophies behind them?
MB
Strawman.
My points were dealing with the Native American issue and the use of symbols that feature them in a derogatory way.
Native Americans object to being called redskins, and yet, a prominent team from Washington is named just that.
I used the example of the Chicago Blackhawks earlier. The actions of a small segment of their fans ( 'blacking up' as Native Americans) wouldn't last five minutes in the UK.
To address your historical points, its fair to say that "the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc." would be better changed to the principle that SOME men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.
That better reflects historical accuracy.
Years ago, I was surprised to learn that the British army, during the revolution, freed thousands of slaves, used them in their army, and had the majority of Native Americans on their side. Stark contrast to what the Continental Army had.
1) It isn't a Strawman to take the words of Confederates at face value, which is where I found the description of the Confederacy (From both Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech" and from the writings of the Theologists used by Stephens to draw up the Founding Documents of the Confederates.
2) I did address the issue of Native Americans and Thomas Jefferson.
They are subsumed in the mistakes made by the USA, which conflict with the Intentions of the Founders.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
I got to ask, is it your belief that non-whites cannot be racist?
Because La Raza and The Black Panther Party don't typically donate to GOP candidates.
La Raza isn't really a U.S. Institution.
But the TINY number of supporters in the USA have not contributed to political parties as a rule. Same thing with the Black Panthers.
Both collectively don't even make up a percentage of the numbers of White Supremacists.
PLUS... The Black Panthers and La Raza are, as a rule, NOT "Latin/Blaxk Supremacists." They have other issues which tend to be problematic.
Also, La Raza in Spain is just another White Supremacist group.
This is yet another attempt to point at an exception and try to make it a rule. It is sort of like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because someone once survived doing so.
MB
Man you are a goal post stretching son of a gun.
Your post which I replied to was pretty clear, you stated: "IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP."
That is false. The NCLR (La Raza) sprung from the Chicano movement and has nothing in the context of my post to do with Spain, and I am pretty sure you're smart enough to know that. The SPLC calls the New Black Panther Party "The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."
Size of the organization has nothing to do with your original statement. The New Black Panthers with clubs 'guarding' a voting site in 2008 did not have a Klan equivalent. Sometimes an organization can have influence well beyond its size.
These are not 'exceptions that prove the rule'. They are examples that show you are talking from a position of ignorance.
Having looked up both, neither have made contributions to Political Parties.
Any attempts by the NBPP have been returned, and La Raza does not support Democratic Hispanic Candidates. They have run their own candidates in LA and Arizona (and lost, apparently).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is another episode like the GOP freaking out about a Democrat caught having sex, and then failing to understand why it isn't an issue.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: He's no longer in office, and he caught a metric gak-ton of flak for what he said.
Still shows some of your politicians are just full of gak. Which makes them pretty similar to our politicians. And, I am sure, most politicians around the world. Is that an epidemic ?
BeAfraid wrote: They are subsumed in the mistakes made by the USA, which conflict with the Intentions of the Founders.
Intentions or lip service, whichever you want to believe.
Orlanth wrote: While other nations abuses do not excuse the Confederacy the Confederacy is being singled out as evil wheras their morality was at a par with others.
Oh but there is an obvious reason for that. It is because the Confederacy did not live long enough to be anything beyond the people that were willing to go to war to protect slavery. If they had, this would be one dirty part of their history, like many countries have dirty part of their history. As it stands, this is the whole of their history.
Orlanth wrote: Slavery can be 'justified' by literalist short reading of the Bible (i.e not looking for the actual meaning of a passage) and religious texts of the time.
I just so love how “the actual meaning of [religious text]” actually means “what I want [religious text] to mean”. Notice how the “actual meaning” is never something that makes the person talking uncomfortable, always something that he agrees on.
Orlanth wrote: Due to the way societies worked in the 19th century a moral case for slavery could be made at face value, and often was.
If that moral case was based on religion, we can all hold this against religions then. They allow moral cases for utterly abhorrent crimes against humanity to be made. That is not really a good thing.
Orlanth wrote: Evil is a conscious choice, if people are indoctrinated into doing what some think as evil but they are taught as good, are they being evil? […] A Confederate patriot, even a Confederate industrialist or plantation owner is on a moral par with their contemporaries in other nations of the time. Many believed in the justice of their cause, rough and smooth, in well intentioned terms; others less so.
In every message you make, you always, always take the point of view of the “European” (I include any American of European descent and culture in there, in opposition to native Americans, because pretending that a WASP is not European in culture is a bit silly). Never the point of view of the black slave, or the colonized people. It is always about if the European guy believe that was he was fighting for was right, but never about how if the black slave felt about how the European guy went to war to make sure he stayed enslaved…
As bad as slavery was (and still is - mostly in the middle east and Africa, but still in the US), the vast majority of people who fought for the South did not own slaves. From the 1860 census - 4.8 percent of southern whites owned one or more slaves. Another little known fact - the Slavic peoples of Europe (my ancestors) were captured as slaves so frequently that that is where the word "slave" came from.
I have no issue with the flag. It should not be flown on a government building but anywhere else it is just gravy. Just as walking around wearing a shirt that says "I worship Satan" is 100% legal and fine.
Also - if you think the confederates were "evil" or something - try reading some unbiased history about it. Confederate generals could have sacked Washington and taken over the north with relative ease at the beginning of the war. They didn't do it because they didn't want to destroy their own country and were hoping for a political end to the war. It was Lincoln and the Northern generals that took no qualms to sacking cities and committing total war against the south. It wasn't about slavery ether. It was 100% an economic issue.
Dreadwinter wrote: Economic issue? I guess taking away slave labor is a pretty big economic issue.
Only 4.8% of whites owned slaves in the South. Over 25% of Free blacks owned slaves in the South. Slavery had nothing to do with the color of their skin.
For me at the end of the day the confederate flag is just plain scary. There are enough people that use it as symbol for their hateful beliefs and do so loudly enough it takes on that meaning for me too. These are people that would honestly want to hurt me for what I am and have done so to my family members. Further, however many historical meanings the flag may have had, motivations the confederacy may have had, or beliefs the Confederates may have held one of those was still the support of slavery. Even if you somehow claim it was like only 5% of what the confederacy wanted, it was still a part of it.That real part of it is the one that is important enough to dominate the value that institution and their symbols had, regardless of their internal thoughts at the time.
If Doug spends 80% of his time helping is grandma, 15% of his time gardening and 5% of his time stabbing children to death he isn't "Doug that guy who loves his grandma and gardens and also sometimes does other stuff" he's "Doug that guy who stabbed a bunch of children". Similarly if your Confederacy goes to war with the united states 80% because the government was unfairly trampling their rights, 15% because of unfair economic practices and 5% because they wanted to keep in their slaves they're not the government that "Left for states rights, economic gains and also some other stuff" they're the "Guys who went to war to keep their slaves". That's not unfair, not twisting the truth and not leaving anything of relative importance out. The reprehensibility of slavery is such a massive multiplier on the importance of the matter that it being about slavery at all, means that slavery is really the only thing that should matter, at least in the general discussion for the broad public.
Take all that and I just can't stomach the thing, at least outside an educational/historic context. Fly your confederate flag or whatever outside your house, I'll see it turn my car around and go down another street. The issue with flying it in front your state capital is the states capital is that your minority residents can't just leave and shouldn't have to in order to get away from that terrible flag.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
I got to ask, is it your belief that non-whites cannot be racist?
Because La Raza and The Black Panther Party don't typically donate to GOP candidates.
La Raza isn't really a U.S. Institution.
But the TINY number of supporters in the USA have not contributed to political parties as a rule. Same thing with the Black Panthers.
Both collectively don't even make up a percentage of the numbers of White Supremacists.
PLUS... The Black Panthers and La Raza are, as a rule, NOT "Latin/Blaxk Supremacists." They have other issues which tend to be problematic.
Also, La Raza in Spain is just another White Supremacist group.
This is yet another attempt to point at an exception and try to make it a rule. It is sort of like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because someone once survived doing so.
MB
Man you are a goal post stretching son of a gun.
Your post which I replied to was pretty clear, you stated: "IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP."
That is false. The NCLR (La Raza) sprung from the Chicano movement and has nothing in the context of my post to do with Spain, and I am pretty sure you're smart enough to know that. The SPLC calls the New Black Panther Party "The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."
Size of the organization has nothing to do with your original statement. The New Black Panthers with clubs 'guarding' a voting site in 2008 did not have a Klan equivalent. Sometimes an organization can have influence well beyond its size.
These are not 'exceptions that prove the rule'. They are examples that show you are talking from a position of ignorance.
Having looked up both, neither have made contributions to Political Parties.
Any attempts by the NBPP have been returned, and La Raza does not support Democratic Hispanic Candidates. They have run their own candidates in LA and Arizona (and lost, apparently).
The New Black Panther Party provided security for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, helped 'guard' that Philly polling place in 2008 (which Holder refused to prosecute), they worked with Charles Barron (D politician in NY) and have worked to 'get out the vote' for many Democratic candidates at state and local levels.
The Confederacy was based pretty heavily on the concept of White Supremacy, a concept that remained mandated (not allowed, but required) in the laws of the South for 100 years after the war. Slavery, segregation, racism... these are all symptoms of the overarching ideology: that only white people have the rights of due process, civil liberaties, and the ability to participate in the economic and political life of the body politic.
White Supermacy reached its apex in the the antebellum south with federally protected chattel slavery, but the Black Codes and sheer terror expressed by the State on black citizens under Jim Crow was horrible beyond modern analog.
It's this subtle distinction between racism and white Supremacy that is too often ignored. Sure, there are black racists, but you can't really be a black supremicist, because black people don't, as a group, have the influence to stifle white participation in society. Incidentally, this is why it's generally seen as worse for a white person to discriminate against a black person than vice versa. Both can be expressions of personal feelings, but only one is part of an overarching effort to keep entire races out of public life.
Dreadwinter wrote: Economic issue? I guess taking away slave labor is a pretty big economic issue.
Only 4.8% of whites owned slaves in the South. Over 25% of Free blacks owned slaves in the South. Slavery had nothing to do with the color of their skin.
Dreadwinter wrote: Economic issue? I guess taking away slave labor is a pretty big economic issue.
Only 4.8% of whites owned slaves in the South. Over 25% of Free blacks owned slaves in the South. Slavery had nothing to do with the color of their skin.
That's not just untrue, that's actively false.
Early colonial slavry in the 17th century was relatively color blind, with black slave owners and white slaves. There's a good amount of evidnece that most black "slave owners" had purchased their own families out of slavery, since manumission was so difficult. There were isolated instances of Blank planters in louisania, which was by far the most egalatarian states, and in Maryland, which had a long history of freedmen. But slavery was seen, explicitly, as a racial issue.
It's not like this was opaque or vague. The confederate Constitution states that clearly, for example with passages like "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Or here: "In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress."
This isn't a minor point buried in a 1000 page act of congress. It's the blueprint for their whole system of government, and it specifies that the government could not eliminate slavery of black people.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?
America has a capital city named after a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson was another slave owner, to name a few.
And what about Native Americans? If there's one group in US history that has arguably suffered more than African Americans, then its Native Americans.
I watched a BBC documentary on the subject and a lot of them consider these symbols to be offensive: Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the 2nd Infantry division, Chicago Blackhawks?? etc etc
They feel their culture is mocked and trivialised, as it has been depicted on everything from cigarette packets to chocolate bars.
And don't get them started on 1950s Westerns!!
Like I say, there a ton of symbols in modern America that can be seen as historically 'embarrassing.
Are you really that blind to the intentions and philosophical foundations of the various agencies at question here:
• The Confederacy: Founded on the idea that all men are NOT EQUAL; that some men are granted superiority by GOD over all others,and that some THINGS that only look like men (but are actually less than "animals") must be placed under the complete dominion of "Human Beings" (this is read by the Confederacy as "White men from Europe Only") in the institution of perpetual slavery; that "Human beings" have SOME RIGHTS (dictated by their God given status. Rich people have been blessed by God, and are those his "chosen," deserving more rights, while the poor, being out of favor with God, deserve fewer rights), while "things" that just "look" like humans (and have Black Skin) have no rights at all.
The Confederacy COMPLETELY LIVED UP TO THEIR CLAIMS. I.e. They were completely evil in that regard.
• The USA (including Thomas Jefferson): Founded on the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.
The USA did not always live up to that intention, but the changes to our Constitution tend to reflect times when we realized "Oops! We F-Ed UP! We better change things to make it up to those we have wronged."
Are you REALLY unable to see a distinction between those two entities, and the philosophies behind them?
MB
The founding of the United States of America was just as "racist" as the founding of the Confederacy. Slavery was legal and in practice in all 13 colonies before, and during the War for Independence and in 12 of the 13 colonies after. Both the Articles of Confederation and Constitution limited legal rights to a specific subset of the populace. Thomas Jefferson was an avowed slave owning racist white supremacist. While he believed that all men were created equal his definition of a man was not the same as what you're implying.
The first northern state to get rid of slavery was Vermont in 1777 but they did so without actually freeing any slaves. Slaves that were in Vermont had to be moved out of Vermont to other states where slavery was still practiced. Slaves were still owned in New Jersey until 1865.
The US constitution was signed by 12 states wherein slavery was legal and in practice. The Confederate constitution was signed by 11 states wherein slavery was legal and in practice.
Polonius wrote: The Confederacy was based pretty heavily on the concept of White Supremacy, a concept that remained mandated (not allowed, but required) in the laws of the South for 100 years after the war. Slavery, segregation, racism... these are all symptoms of the overarching ideology: that only white people have the rights of due process, civil liberaties, and the ability to participate in the economic and political life of the body politic.
White Supermacy reached its apex in the the antebellum south with federally protected chattel slavery, but the Black Codes and sheer terror expressed by the State on black citizens under Jim Crow was horrible beyond modern analog.
It's this subtle distinction between racism and white Supremacy that is too often ignored. Sure, there are black racists, but you can't really be a black supremicist, because black people don't, as a group, have the influence to stifle white participation in society. Incidentally, this is why it's generally seen as worse for a white person to discriminate against a black person than vice versa. Both can be expressions of personal feelings, but only one is part of an overarching effort to keep entire races out of public life.
Right this is what is missed by the "only 4.5% of southern whites owned slaves" crowd. The whole culture was based around white supremacy, and most of the whites that didn't own slaves, aspired to move up the social ladder to where they could be slave owners. Furthermore by keeping blacks as slaves, even poor whites received the benefits of that institution even at a minimum by defaulting to a higher caste.
So point being even they didn't own slaves, the non slave owning whites reaped benefits from the cultural institution of slavery. So I'm afraid unless they were part of the small southern abolitionist movement, there is no letting non southern slaveowners "off the hook" just because they didn't own slaves.
It's similar concept to the German civilians who turned a blind eye to the Concentration camps. Just because they didn't actively participate in the sloughter houses, doesn't mean that they aren't at least somewhat culpable.
Prestor Jon wrote: The founding of the United States of America was just as "racist" as the founding of the Confederacy.
Yeah, it was. It changed a bit over time, though. Unlike the CSA that did not, because they could not, because they did not exist anymore.
And unlike religious text, the Constitution can be changed when people change their mind, though for some reason the US refuse to do so except to add more stuff, if I understood correctly.
The founding of the United States of America was just as "racist" as the founding of the Confederacy.
Maybe, but probably not, if only because the states of the confederacy actively became more committed to white supremacy after the constituation, while the other states were less commited. For example, in many states, free black men could vote after the Revolution. This was slowly expanded in the North to cover more individuals, while in the south various laws prevented most free blacks from voting into the 1960s.
That both the US and CS constitutions allowed for slavery is undeniable, but it ignores that for the USA in the 18th centuries, it was seen as a distasteful compromise for many people, including delegates from the South. The CSA constitution not only endorsed slavery, it mandated that the practice expand.
If by "just as racist" you mean both were racist enough to at least allow slavery, than sure. But I dont' think it takes too much effort to see a moral differnece between one political body that merely accepts a practice differently than another that actively condones it
It is anything but absurd. The Confederate Battle Flag was historical, as was the stars and bars, though the former is what we normally see. Yes the KKK decided to use it, but the KKK were post ACW, they were not around during the Confederacy but emerged afterwards.
It is ignorant to say the Confederate Battle flag is the flag of the KKK while denying that it was ao the standard of the Army of Northern Virginia, its premiere and most historically important military formation, and also served the base of the revised national flag, twice.
It is clearly a case that the symbol is a genuine historical Confederate symbol, which is public domain and was used by the KKK amongst others, including the Democrats while campaigning to elect Clinton and Obama. It is highly selective to highlight one unofficial usage and claim it represents it all, even worse to deny its actual source.
In the late 1940s, the flag was adopted as a symbol of the Dixiecrats -- a political party devoted to, among other things, maintaining segregation. They also opposed President Harry S. Truman’s proposals to instate anti-discrimination laws and make lynching a federal crime.
In 1963, the year after the Ole Miss riot, Alabama Gov. George Wallace raised the flag over the state Capitol in protest against desegregation, as described by the Georgia State Senate Research Office in a 2000 report.
It was first flown over a southern capitol to protest against desegregation. So why is it still on capitol buildings? heritage? the heritage of fighting against equal rights for black? yep.
To claim that the flag only represents how it was used in the civil war is ignorant and ignoring the true history of it.
Today, Does anyone from the civil war still use it? nope. Do racist hate groups use it? yep.
Prestor Jon wrote: Thomas Jefferson was an avowed slave owning racist white supremacist
Actually, from most everything I've read TJ actually hated slavery and was very quietly working to get rid of it. Yes, it's no secret that he owned slaves, and definitely "loved" some of them more than others. But from those same sources, Jefferson kept slaves not out of some racial malice or anything, but because it was literally the only way to be economically viable at that time.
Prestor Jon wrote: Thomas Jefferson was an avowed slave owning racist white supremacist
Actually, from most everything I've read TJ actually hated slavery and was very quietly working to get rid of it. Yes, it's no secret that he owned slaves, and definitely "loved" some of them more than others. But from those same sources, Jefferson kept slaves not out of some racial malice or anything, but because it was literally the only way to be economically viable at that time.
I doubt that he was exactly egalitarian, in that he probably assumed that white people were racially superior, which was a not uncommon thought at the time, and through the mid 20th century. So, while many of his views would seem backward and racist today, they reflected progressive thoughts at the time.
Even in the 1860s, even among abolitionists, there was a lot of controversy over granting full legal equality to freed blacks. In many ways, it took until the massive data collections taken during World War II to show no major difference in IQ, height, weight, strength, or character between races. A generation later, DNA evidence put the nail in the coffin.
Polonius wrote: The Confederacy was based pretty heavily on the concept of White Supremacy, a concept that remained mandated (not allowed, but required) in the laws of the South for 100 years after the war. Slavery, segregation, racism... these are all symptoms of the overarching ideology: that only white people have the rights of due process, civil liberaties, and the ability to participate in the economic and political life of the body politic.
White Supermacy reached its apex in the the antebellum south with federally protected chattel slavery, but the Black Codes and sheer terror expressed by the State on black citizens under Jim Crow was horrible beyond modern analog.
It's this subtle distinction between racism and white Supremacy that is too often ignored. Sure, there are black racists, but you can't really be a black supremicist, because black people don't, as a group, have the influence to stifle white participation in society. Incidentally, this is why it's generally seen as worse for a white person to discriminate against a black person than vice versa. Both can be expressions of personal feelings, but only one is part of an overarching effort to keep entire races out of public life.
Right this is what is missed by the "only 4.5% of southern whites owned slaves" crowd. The whole culture was based around white supremacy, and most of the whites that didn't own slaves, aspired to move up the social ladder to where they could be slave owners. Furthermore by keeping blacks as slaves, even poor whites received the benefits of that institution even at a minimum by defaulting to a higher caste.
So point being even they didn't own slaves, the non slave owning whites reaped benefits from the cultural institution of slavery. So I'm afraid unless they were part of the small southern abolitionist movement, there is no letting non southern slaveowners "off the hook" just because they didn't own slaves.
It's similar concept to the German civilians who turned a blind eye to the Concentration camps. Just because they didn't actively participate in the sloughter houses, doesn't mean that they aren't at least somewhat culpable.
GG
Nah dude - no one holds german civilians responsible for any of that nonsense.. They were under rule of the most violent regime in European history - they had no choice but to just wait it out. The only ones that have any share in the blame are those who made knowledgeable decisions that placed the nazi party in power.
I also question the moral compass of anyone who thinks causing a war that killed over 800,000 Americans and left the entire south in ruins for 100 years to "free" 1.3 million blacks was in some way just. It wasn't at all and I think forgetting that history by removing it's symbols is wrong.
Prestor Jon wrote: The founding of the United States of America was just as "racist" as the founding of the Confederacy.
Yeah, it was. It changed a bit over time, though. Unlike the CSA that did not, because they could not, because they did not exist anymore.
And unlike religious text, the Constitution can be changed when people change their mind, though for some reason the US refuse to do so except to add more stuff, if I understood correctly.
Slavery had been in continual practice in the South for over 200 years when the Civil War broke out. It was in practice when they were colonies, when they were independent states and when they were part of the United States. The South wanted to continue their agrarian slave based economy and society even as a growing majority of northern states had modernized to a more industrial technologically advanced economy so they sought to secede and form their own country, much like the way some of the confederate states seceded from England during the War for Independence. Slavery was also in practice in multiple northern states both before and during the Civil War. Racist laws and slavery existed throughout the country, the South just depended on it and clung to it more strongly than some of the northern states did.
We've actually repealed multiple amendments to the constitution, it just hasn't happened as often as we've added new ones.
Xenomancers wrote: Nah dude - no one holds german civilians responsible for any of that nonsense.. They were under rule of the most violent regime in European history - they had no choice but to just wait it out. The only ones that have any share in the blame are those who made knowledgeable decisions that placed the nazi party in power.
That's simply not true. Plenty of people have condemned the citizens of Germany, but concerns about their guilt quickly turned around with the Cold war. German civilians expressed far less resistence to the Nazi regime than any other people.
I also question the moral compass of anyone who thinks causing a war that killed over 800,000 Americans and left the entire south in ruins for 100 years to "free" 1.3 million blacks was in some way just. It wasn't at all and I think forgetting that history by removing it's symbols is wrong.
Is there a casualty to slaves freed exchange rate you are comfortable with? The war was prosecuted over the issue of secession, which while itself was primarily about slavery was also seen as outright rebellion. Civil wars are bloody. I'd look at it more as 800,000 died in the civil war, but hey, at least we freed some slaves too!
I think you're probably in a minority about the morals of the Civil War, but that's your right.
Nah dude - no one holds german civilians responsible for any of that nonsense.. They were under rule of the most violent regime in European history
Nice to know that Russia isn't European in this case
Anyhow... yes, continue with the Lost Cause thinking that it was the North that caused the war in the first place.
Hypothetically speaking here... With the results of the 1860 election, Southern slave owners knew their bell was tolling, slavery was ticking down it's final hours. IF they had not seceded, and instead tried to fight things out through the legislative branch, or at least stalled any bills/motions, etc. for as long as possible, maybe they would have realized shortly that the economics behind slavery was actually turning into a lose-lose situation.
Personally, I do wish that there had been another way, but there were a group of people, mostly from the South that didn't see things that way. And the South lost the war.
Also, I think that if you really look, most of the posters here aren't calling for removing the symbols of a racist country. We're calling out the southern states who are flying the symbols at their state buildings. If Gettysburg were only a monument, let's say it's a large field gun, flanked by two flag-poles with a plinth that holds a plaque with some words about never forgetting... There'd be absolutely no problem with one of the flag-poles holding the Confederate battle flag, or one of the confederate national flags, because that is exactly what the monument is there for. Throwing the flag on a pole in front of the state capitol in 1961 and keeping it up until 2015 isn't "commemorating" anything, it's deliberately thumbing the nose at people who are offended by the racist ideals that that flag upholds.
Taking the confederate flag down from state buildings isn't "forgetting history" it's moving beyond that history.
Prestor Jon wrote: Racist laws and slavery existed throughout the country, the South just depended on it and clung to it more strongly than some of the northern states did.
Which gave them the privilege of being remembered as the bad guys.
Because having your economy depend on terrible crimes against humanity, and clinging to the laws allowing said crimes even when that means an appalling number of deaths to tend to make you remembered as the bad guys.
Moral of the story: if you care about how history is going to remember you, try not to get your economy dependent on crimes against humanity.
Prestor Jon wrote: We've actually repealed multiple amendments to the constitution, it just hasn't happened as often as we've added new ones.
Moral of the story: if you care about how history is going to remember you, try not to get your economy dependent on crimes against humanity.
But the problem here is that you're projecting today's modern values onto a past people.
Personally, yes, I condemn slavery as a "wrong" institution. But when I read history from that time period, I'm not thinking, "Oh my, what a bunch of evil d-bags", because then I'd be projecting my modern values onto something I should not be doing that with.
Kilkrazy wrote: The general public opinion of the time of the Confederacy was against slavery, though, as it was recognised as an evil.
That really depends how wide a lens you use. In industrializing areas, such as europe and the British Empire, it was seen as increasingly disasteful. Big pockets of people saw it as evil, but even then, it was seen as more acceptable for Black people due to the scientific racism of the time. The Islamic world still had slavery, as did chunks of asia. And serfdom was nearly equivilent.
That said, the British government, and many people, saw the institution in a negative enough light to preclude any intervention on behalf of the CSA. There's a story that even the laid off textile workers supported the union, as while they were idle without Southern Cotton, they felt slavery was worth fighting against.
Nah dude - no one holds german civilians responsible for any of that nonsense.. They were under rule of the most violent regime in European history
Nice to know that Russia isn't European in this case
Anyhow... yes, continue with the Lost Cause thinking that it was the North that caused the war in the first place.
Hypothetically speaking here... With the results of the 1860 election, Southern slave owners knew their bell was tolling, slavery was ticking down it's final hours. IF they had not seceded, and instead tried to fight things out through the legislative branch, or at least stalled any bills/motions, etc. for as long as possible, maybe they would have realized shortly that the economics behind slavery was actually turning into a lose-lose situation.
Personally, I do wish that there had been another way, but there were a group of people, mostly from the South that didn't see things that way. And the South lost the war.
Also, I think that if you really look, most of the posters here aren't calling for removing the symbols of a racist country. We're calling out the southern states who are flying the symbols at their state buildings. If Gettysburg were only a monument, let's say it's a large field gun, flanked by two flag-poles with a plinth that holds a plaque with some words about never forgetting... There'd be absolutely no problem with one of the flag-poles holding the Confederate battle flag, or one of the confederate national flags, because that is exactly what the monument is there for. Throwing the flag on a pole in front of the state capitol in 1961 and keeping it up until 2015 isn't "commemorating" anything, it's deliberately thumbing the nose at people who are offended by the racist ideals that that flag upholds.
Taking the confederate flag down from state buildings isn't "forgetting history" it's moving beyond that history.
I'm not aruging for state institutions to fly the confed flag. I agree that is stupid - they should be flying 1 flag. The American flag. Maybe a state flag too. If some hill billy wants to fly it on his truck though - it doesn't bother me.
I'm not aruging for state institutions to fly the confed flag. I agree that is stupid - they should be flying 1 flag. The American flag. Maybe a state flag too. If some hill billy wants to fly it on his truck though - it doesn't bother me.
Ahh, then we actually agree.
I mean, seeing some hillbilly, or redneck, or whatever you want to call them flying the rebel flag "bothers" me... but it does not, and will not ever bother me to the point where I think we need to infringe on a "god" given right.
Xenomancers wrote: Nah dude - no one holds german civilians responsible for any of that nonsense.. They were under rule of the most violent regime in European history - they had no choice but to just wait it out. The only ones that have any share in the blame are those who made knowledgeable decisions that placed the nazi party in power.
That's simply not true. Plenty of people have condemned the citizens of Germany, but concerns about their guilt quickly turned around with the Cold war. German civilians expressed far less resistence to the Nazi regime than any other people.
I also question the moral compass of anyone who thinks causing a war that killed over 800,000 Americans and left the entire south in ruins for 100 years to "free" 1.3 million blacks was in some way just. It wasn't at all and I think forgetting that history by removing it's symbols is wrong.
Is there a casualty to slaves freed exchange rate you are comfortable with? The war was prosecuted over the issue of secession, which while itself was primarily about slavery was also seen as outright rebellion. Civil wars are bloody. I'd look at it more as 800,000 died in the civil war, but hey, at least we freed some slaves too!
I think you're probably in a minority about the morals of the Civil War, but that's your right.
I'm happy to be in the minority when the majority is in denial.
I think it's absurd to blame German civilians for anything associated with the holocaust. I hope I am not in the miniority on that one. Innocent people in fear for their lives are victims and they should feel no guilt. What is the proper exchange rate for freed slaves to war casualties? Preferably 0. If we elected some responsible leadership instead of a blood thirsty tyrant - there never would have been a civil war - slavery would have dissipated on its own over time - like it has everywhere else in the civilized world without the need for almost a million dead. Then again when one side is morally superior - you can just blame the other side for all the dead so no guilt should be given to yourself...it is a joke. Oh yeah - those immigrants? Those were my people. I'm sure they would have been happy to work fields instead of fight a stupid war - there was no other way?
The north blockaded the southern ports and used a steady supply of immigrants to beat down the south.
You know what a smart a fair leader would have done? Buy all the slaves from the south, then let them use the cheap labor of immigrants to ween them off slavery in a tapered system. Anything is better than all out war and there is always alternatives to it.
German civilians were starving in the streets, having been forced to pay unheard-of reparations for a war they didn't start, and losing the industrial production centers required to create the goods that would have allowed them to halt the free-fall their economy was in and actually repay that debt certainly didn't help.
Along comes a guy who says he's going to put Germany back to work, a pig in every pot, a Volkswagen in every garage, and latches on to an already-prevalent social belief the world over ("Those dirty Jews did it!") and gets elected to office.
Anti-semitic thought did not originate with the Nazis, not by a long shot. It was a fairly common belief throughout the United States at the time, too (as was anti-Catholic sentiment).
So... no, the citizens of Germany aren't really culpable for the Nazi Party. The Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 pretty much ensured that someone like Hitler would rise to power.
Psienesis wrote: German civilians were starving in the streets, having been forced to pay unheard-of reparations for a war they didn't start, and losing the industrial production centers required to create the goods that would have allowed them to halt the free-fall their economy was in and actually repay that debt certainly didn't help.
Along comes a guy who says he's going to put Germany back to work, a pig in every pot, a Volkswagen in every garage, and latches on to an already-prevalent social belief the world over ("Those dirty Jews did it!") and gets elected to office.
Anti-semitic thought did not originate with the Nazis, not by a long shot. It was a fairly common belief throughout the United States at the time, too (as was anti-Catholic sentiment).
So... no, the citizens of Germany aren't really culpable for the Nazi Party. The Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 pretty much ensured that someone like Hitler would rise to power.
Many historians are now of the opinion that the Treaty of Versailles was really more of a "Pause" button than an end to the war.
Here's one thing that many people don't realize: There were around 48 different right wing, fascist political parties in Bavaria alone. Prior to Hitler's election, he managed to unite all of them under his Nazi party, and then began swallowing all of the similar parties throughout the rest of Germany as well.
And the truly terrible thing was, after WW1, the US was giving Germany millions of dollars per year (under the table) because at the time, the President basically felt that if Germany completely collapsed, it would lead to another Great War. Unfortunately for the Presidents, and the US, 1929 hit and we stopped our quiet help of Germany.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: But the problem here is that you're projecting today's modern values onto a past people.
Are you trying to tell me that back then, the slave loved being slave and thought slavery and institutionalized racism was great and awesome and morally very justified?
My bad then.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Personally, yes, I condemn slavery as a "wrong" institution. But when I read history from that time period, I'm not thinking, "Oh my, what a bunch of evil d-bags", because then I'd be projecting my modern values onto something I should not be doing that with.
What about “Oh my, what a bunch of people doing something extremely evil”? Is that okay with you? That seems about right to me.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: But the problem here is that you're projecting today's modern values onto a past people.
Are you trying to tell me that back then, the slave loved being slave and thought slavery and institutionalized racism was great and awesome and morally very justified?
My bad then.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Personally, yes, I condemn slavery as a "wrong" institution. But when I read history from that time period, I'm not thinking, "Oh my, what a bunch of evil d-bags", because then I'd be projecting my modern values onto something I should not be doing that with.
What about “Oh my, what a bunch of people doing something extremely evil”? Is that okay with you? That seems about right to me.
Now you're definitely projecting. I have no doubt that there were some minority of slaves who went to "good" masters, who treated them well because he/she knew that his own livelihood depending on their performance. Obviously there are less than good people who owned slaves who didn't treat their "property" all that well.
What I'm saying is that, when you look at the institution, and the society as a whole, the very people perpetrating these acts were morally "justified" by their own logic. What was "right" back then, obviously wasn't right, and there was a war to try and fix it.
Again, the people who were owning slaves and had lives which were only economically viable, felt that they were morally on the high ground. It is more modern values that show us that owning human beings is dead wrong. From where I'm sitting, here, in the 21st Century, reading about the Southern States of the confederacy may as well be as foreign to me as Han Dynasty China. ... there values and "morality" are that alien to what we view today.
There is no amount of "good treatment" that mitigates the grinding oppression of unregulated slavery in the American South. Families could be split up, education was forbidden, violence and terror were common, women were frequently and repeatedly raped, and there was nothing you could do to better your situation.
A minority might prefer three hots and a cot under such terms, but for most people, that level of horror is too great to bear.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except even at the time of the ACW many of the big players in the colonial world had already brought in the abolition of slavery.
So even without applying our modern standards but rather the standards of the time at which the ACW happened, slavery was still wrong and evil.
Many, but not all, and apparently not very many in the South.
Naturally, I side more with the north, as slavery I do view slavery as being wrong. That said, I see the "reasoning" behind why the South wanted to maintain the status quo. I disagree with it, but I can see the "logic" behind it.
I'm happy to be in the minority when the majority is in denial.
I think it's absurd to blame German civilians for anything associated with the holocaust. I hope I am not in the miniority on that one. Innocent people in fear for their lives are victims and they should feel no guilt. What is the proper exchange rate for freed slaves to war casualties? Preferably 0. If we elected some responsible leadership instead of a blood thirsty tyrant - there never would have been a civil war - slavery would have dissipated on its own over time - like it has everywhere else in the civilized world without the need for almost a million dead. Then again when one side is morally superior - you can just blame the other side for all the dead so no guilt should be given to yourself...it is a joke. Oh yeah - those immigrants? Those were my people. I'm sure they would have been happy to work fields instead of fight a stupid war - there was no other way?
The north blockaded the southern ports and used a steady supply of immigrants to beat down the south.
You know what a smart a fair leader would have done? Buy all the slaves from the south, then let them use the cheap labor of immigrants to ween them off slavery in a tapered system. Anything is better than all out war and there is always alternatives to it.
Talk about being in denial, your post takes the cake. Revisionist history indeed.
The elected a blood thirsty tyrant? no, the southern states instead of trying to work out their issues, turned traitor and fled before lincoln even took office. No there was no other way, the south instigated the ACW by leaving and declaring the only way they'd come back is through war. The south didn't want to hear the alternatives, they feared what lincoln might do and left turned against america.
Kilkrazy wrote: The general public opinion of the time of the Confederacy was against slavery, though, as it was recognised as an evil.
That really depends how wide a lens you use. In industrializing areas, such as europe and the British Empire, it was seen as increasingly disasteful. Big pockets of people saw it as evil, but even then, it was seen as more acceptable for Black people due to the scientific racism of the time. The Islamic world still had slavery, as did chunks of asia. And serfdom was nearly equivilent.
That said, the British government, and many people, saw the institution in a negative enough light to preclude any intervention on behalf of the CSA. There's a story that even the laid off textile workers supported the union, as while they were idle without Southern Cotton, they felt slavery was worth fighting against.
I am using a lens that includes the Confederate states in the same category as what would have been called First World in the 1970s. In other words, a fairly "advanced" country that was similar in terms of heritage and tradition of culture, laws and religion, etc.
At any rate it would be difficult convincingly to claim the CSA had more culturally in common with Russia, the Ottoman Empire or the Sudan than with Britain, France and the northern USA.
Kilkrazy wrote: The general public opinion of the time of the Confederacy was against slavery, though, as it was recognised as an evil.
That really depends how wide a lens you use. In industrializing areas, such as europe and the British Empire, it was seen as increasingly disasteful. Big pockets of people saw it as evil, but even then, it was seen as more acceptable for Black people due to the scientific racism of the time. The Islamic world still had slavery, as did chunks of asia. And serfdom was nearly equivilent.
That said, the British government, and many people, saw the institution in a negative enough light to preclude any intervention on behalf of the CSA. There's a story that even the laid off textile workers supported the union, as while they were idle without Southern Cotton, they felt slavery was worth fighting against.
I am using a lens that includes the Confederate states in the same category as what would have been called First World in the 1970s. In other words, a fairly "advanced" country that was similar in terms of heritage and tradition of culture, laws and religion, etc.
At any rate it would be difficult convincingly to claim the CSA had more culturally in common with Russia, the Ottoman Empire or the Sudan than with Britain, France and the northern USA.
Sure, I was more clariying/qualifying than arguing. The CSA would certianly only want to see itself compared with Western/Central Europe and North America, I'm sure.
Brazil is a bit of a corner case, having a handful of new world slave territitories doesn't change the general view in civilized society.
Swastakowey wrote: Japan never changed their flag... it has been the red dot thing since before and after the war.
The flag you are thinking of was the flag of the imperial army, they still use one very similar it's just not centered.
Nope.
Prior to the War it was a Red Dot with streaming Rays coming from it.
After the war it was simply the Dot.
MB
A few pages back but... no you are wrong.
No the dot has been around since 1870 (well before that too as early 1500s etc) according to the internet, the flag with the rays is a military flag (but is also considered even today a variant of the flag), which is still used today just offset not centered.However the normal dot flag is now centered and not offset but apparently that was a 1% correction... so no difference.
No. I am being sarcastic. I thought it was obvious.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Obviously there are less than good people who owned slaves who didn't treat their "property" all that well.
In what kind of world are you living? It was not “bad people” that made the life of slaves hell. It was slavery as the institution was designed. As you put it yourself so well, slave owner were being justified by society to make slave's life hell.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: What I'm saying is that, when you look at the institution, and the society as a whole, the very people perpetrating these acts were morally "justified" by their own logic. What was "right" back then, obviously wasn't right, and there was a war to try and fix it.
The nazi were justified by their own logic too. Really, they were. Their logic was terrible. By Daesh logic, Daesh is justified too. And this is happening right now. Saying “they are justified by their logic” is a very, very poor excuse.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Again, the people who were owning slaves and had lives which were only economically viable, felt that they were morally on the high ground.
Nazi felt they were morally on the high ground. Islamists all think they are on the moral high ground.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: there values and "morality" are that alien to what we view today.
So what? Does that mean you cannot judge them? Uh yes you can, and you should.
THAT is the stars and bars. The only people that think the stars and bars are the other flag are people who couldnt be bothered to pay attention in history class (read: most people).
Orlanth wrote: While other nations abuses do not excuse the Confederacy the Confederacy is being singled out as evil wheras their morality was at a par with others.
Oh but there is an obvious reason for that. It is because the Confederacy did not live long enough to be anything beyond the people that were willing to go to war to protect slavery. If they had, this would be one dirty part of their history, like many countries have dirty part of their history. As it stands, this is the whole of their history.
An interesting observation, and one that encourages a more lenient view. Th Confederacy had it pesisted would have had the opportunity to be known for other things.
Orlanth wrote: Slavery can be 'justified' by literalist short reading of the Bible (i.e not looking for the actual meaning of a passage) and religious texts of the time.
I just so love how “the actual meaning of [religious text]” actually means “what I want [religious text] to mean”. Notice how the “actual meaning” is never something that makes the person talking uncomfortable, always something that he agrees on.
Grossly unfair statement. The Bible has correct interpretation, however the interpretation is deep, it is a matter of reestablishing the consistency of the positive message.
As for always interpreting by agreement is frankly off and offensive. That is exactly what the fundamentalists did. The Bible contains many restrictions that I would rather wish were not rue, could try and reinterpret in a more agreeable way but will not due to conscience.
If that moral case was based on religion, we can all hold this against religions then. They allow moral cases for utterly abhorrent crimes against humanity to be made. That is not really a good thing.
As the moral case for abolition came from the churches it would be hard to push the blame this way.
The New Testament includes passages on being a Christian slave, and on being a Christian master. Its actually very clearly written. Slavery is 'not recommended', master are encouraged to shelter to use their privilege to shelter slaves from society and salves are encouraged to seek their freedom through lawful means, Combining the two properly as they are part of the same command it would mean that good masters can buy and own slaves, mostly because it is better they did than others. The slaves owned should not have to worry about their futures but were encouraged to pay back the investment and seek freedom, this therefore meant that the offer of a fair price of freedom for an individual slaves was an expectation.
In the context of Roman law, this was practical and liberal, encouraged emancipation on an individual level, in a society where national emancipation wasn't a practical goal.
The above is open to deliberate misinterpretation, but the text is clear.
In every message you make, you always, always take the point of view of the “European” (I include any American of European descent and culture in there, in opposition to native Americans, because pretending that a WASP is not European in culture is a bit silly). Never the point of view of the black slave, or the colonized people. It is always about if the European guy believe that was he was fighting for was right, but never about how if the black slave felt about how the European guy went to war to make sure he stayed enslaved…
I do indeed take the view of the European and descendant cultures, because they are relevant to the topic. The topic at hand was on national culpability, which in the 19th century depended on the attitides of the white males who were the de facto powerbase and not on any ethnic group alongside them. The opinions of blacks in say France in th 19th century is interesting for the poltical record, but had negligible bearing on the policies of colonial France. The same applies to all the powers.
I am not dismissive of other cultures, they were not relevant, especially individual feelings, with reference to looking at the moral culture of Victorian age western nation states.
In Victorian times, they may have considered slavery a moral evil, but that didn't stop them from thinking they could lord it over Africans with colonialism, and when you consider some of the more bizarre theories the Victorians had on non-white people, I don't think they could take the moral high ground.
True, but that was neither the point made nor searched for.
For me it was, and is fair evidence that singling out the Confederacy as 'evil' is grossly unfair and whitewashes the historical record.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: there values and "morality" are that alien to what we view today.
So what? Does that mean you cannot judge them? Uh yes you can, and you should.
I'm an "amateur" historian, in school to basically become a "professional", as well as a teacher. I can only judge based on hypotheticals... If that were going on today, with today's viewpoints and morals, absolutely I'd be judging the feth out of them, because we do that everyday with IS, Russia, China and nearly every country across the world. I would also suggest that if you were an adult, living in say, 1855 in South Carolina, you absolutely would own, or would be aspiring to own slaves, because that was the societal norm, and societal pressure at that time.
Was it wrong? Well, we went to war over it didn't we? and I would say that the "right" side won.
Offending people is too easy. Lets just combine all the offensive ones. Point is, I think there's a lot of knee-jerk happening here. Hell, Apple removed all historical games that had the flag in it.
Where I'm from (Yorkshire, UK) our government buildings display the Yorkshire flag, which is a flag adopted during the "war of the roses" so in essence is a Yorkshire "battle flag". A war we ended up losing. No one takes offence to this, there is even now a Yorkshire Day.
I don't think imo that its much different to a confederate "battle flag" being flown above government buildings, the flag represents the people, ALL the people, of the state/county it is flown over, I would argue keep the flag, the flag isn't racist (as far as I am aware) It's not a Nazi flag, so not a symbol of white power...
Like the Yorkshire flag its surely a symbol of regionalism and identity other than just being an American or being English, your also Southern, or in the case of Yorkshire, Northern.
I'll let the american members here go into more detail but you're wrong.
There is a huge difference between the flags from the Wars of the Roses and a flag which represents a government which sought to split from its country based entirely on the fact that it wanted to continue the evil of slavery.
aronthomas17 wrote: I apologise for my awful understanding of American history :(
It's OK. We don't expect everyone to know everything from every bit of history in the world. Maybe next time just read the thread a bit more carefully to see the points from both sides before making your post, in case you read something which changes it
aronthomas17 wrote: I apologise for my awful understanding of American history :(
It's OK. We don't expect everyone to know everything from every bit of history in the world. Maybe next time just read the thread a bit more carefully to see the points from both sides before making your post, in case you read something which changes it
True, I had read the arguments however I believe in this situation the argument seems to be less about regional identity and more about dividing people. So I misunderstood, thank you
"For many Americans, the flag came to represent the South as a region," he said. "For many white southerners today, it still symbolizes regional pride. For others, it represents a particular interpretation of southern history. For still others, it represents rural life. And for many others, the flag represents rebellion against authority, whether motivated by politics or simple mischief." Service members may embrace it for any of those reasons, he said, adding that to ban it within the military would be "controversial."
"It would need to be acknowledged that not everyone who displays the flag does so with racist intent," Warren said. "Owing to the flag's documented history and ongoing life as a symbol of hatred and racial violence, it could be explained that the flag undermines the American armed forces' commitment to inclusivity, mutual respect and the defense of all Americans.
"Ban without an educational initiative, one that simply associates the battle flag with swastikas and other racist imagery would needlessly and predictably inspire more controversy."
Today, more than 40 percent of all military recruits come from the South, according to Defense Department statistics. By comparison, fewer than 15 percent are natives of the Northeast.
Polonius wrote: There is no amount of "good treatment" that mitigates the grinding oppression of unregulated slavery in the American South. Families could be split up, education was forbidden, violence and terror were common, women were frequently and repeatedly raped, and there was nothing you could do to better your situation.
A minority might prefer three hots and a cot under such terms, but for most people, that level of horror is too great to bear.
Wait, what? In fact, didn't millions upon millions of people choose that state of affairs over death, throughout thousands of years of human history? It's been pretty clearly shown that if your choices are slavery or death, almost everyone chooses slavery. That was a weird post.
generalgrog wrote: So I think I have come full circle on this issue. I understand why, and I sympathize as to why southerners don't think it's an issue. In fact growing up in the south, watching dukes of hazard, and wearing t-shirts with the flag, I never considered it hateful, or even a problem. In fact if you didn't like it, too bad... I still don't consider it hateful, but I do think it's inconsiderate, not as bad as Nazi flag, but almost.
I mean the Nazi flag flown, even for the best intentions(if that were even possible), is still a Nazi flag.
I am the point that the confederate flag not be flown on state or US government property, and belongs in a museum.
If people want to fly it at their homes, that's their right, but take it down from public buildings. It represents too much hurt for minorities, and especially African American descendants of slaves.
What say Dakka?
GG
If Johnny Reb won the war there may be TWO Americas. one will be flying the Confederacy flag.
too bad they didn't. The Confederacy expects swift victory like ones against Mexicans some 20 years ago but no! After Crimea bloodshed, Warfare begins to change.
About the flag of the Confederacy itself. their National flag actually looks VERY similar to the flag of the Union. the flag with red X is actually battle flag but it fits a National ones too!
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I would also suggest that if you were an adult, living in say, 1855 in South Carolina, you absolutely would own, or would be aspiring to own slaves, because that was the societal norm, and societal pressure at that time.
Maybe. Not sure, because, well, I am a vegetarian even though that certainly is not the societal norm here in France, is societal pressure is constantly pushing me to not be one.
But even if I was, then that just means I would be wrong.
Intent has less importance than effect. You can wave the battle flag intending it to be a display of southern pride, but the effect is that you appear to be endorsing an insurrectionist state that existed for the sole purpose of protecting the institution of slavery. You may have the right to do that as a mater of free speech, just as you could sew a swastika patch on your bomber jacket if you like. But it has no place flying from the top of government buildings.
Xenomancers wrote: I have no issue with the flag. It should not be flown on a government building but anywhere else it is just gravy. Just as walking around wearing a shirt that says "I worship Satan" is 100% legal and fine.
Also - if you think the confederates were "evil" or something - try reading some unbiased history about it. Confederate generals could have sacked Washington and taken over the north with relative ease at the beginning of the war. They didn't do it because they didn't want to destroy their own country and were hoping for a political end to the war. It was Lincoln and the Northern generals that took no qualms to sacking cities and committing total war against the south. It wasn't about slavery ether. It was 100% an economic issue.
So should we be just as generous with the Nazis, Stalinists, or other Tyrants, or morally problematic regimes just because they could have done something even worse than their very existence already was?
Should we concentrate upon the anti-smoking campaigns of the Nazis to excuse their foundational morals and ethics being a problem?
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: For me at the end of the day the confederate flag is just plain scary. There are enough people that use it as symbol for their hateful beliefs and do so loudly enough it takes on that meaning for me too. These are people that would honestly want to hurt me for what I am and have done so to my family members. Further, however many historical meanings the flag may have had, motivations the confederacy may have had, or beliefs the Confederates may have held one of those was still the support of slavery. Even if you somehow claim it was like only 5% of what the confederacy wanted, it was still a part of it.That real part of it is the one that is important enough to dominate the value that institution and their symbols had, regardless of their internal thoughts at the time.
If Doug spends 80% of his time helping is grandma, 15% of his time gardening and 5% of his time stabbing children to death he isn't "Doug that guy who loves his grandma and gardens and also sometimes does other stuff" he's "Doug that guy who stabbed a bunch of children". Similarly if your Confederacy goes to war with the united states 80% because the government was unfairly trampling their rights, 15% because of unfair economic practices and 5% because they wanted to keep in their slaves they're not the government that "Left for states rights, economic gains and also some other stuff" they're the "Guys who went to war to keep their slaves". That's not unfair, not twisting the truth and not leaving anything of relative importance out. The reprehensibility of slavery is such a massive multiplier on the importance of the matter that it being about slavery at all, means that slavery is really the only thing that should matter, at least in the general discussion for the broad public.
Take all that and I just can't stomach the thing, at least outside an educational/historic context. Fly your confederate flag or whatever outside your house, I'll see it turn my car around and go down another street. The issue with flying it in front your state capital is the states capital is that your minority residents can't just leave and shouldn't have to in order to get away from that terrible flag.
FINALLY!!!
SOMEONE WHO GETS IT!
Your foundational morals matter more than do the peripheral behavior in cases like these.
The Foundational Morals and Ethics of the Confederacy are the same as "Dave, that guy who stabbed a bunch of kids." The fact that they loves their grandmother, and cut her lawn every week is completely obliterated by the evil they have done, and UNAPOLOGETICALLY DID!
The South has yet to really make any apology for slavery, and instead has gone to great lengths to bury it, sugar coat it, or other wise pretend "It wasn't as bad as all that."
The ONLY way the south can recover from their Confederate Motives is to do as the Germans have done, and say "Sorry, we got REALLY EVIL there for a while, and we have put up signs everywhere acknowledging that, and apologizing for it profusely." (And then working pretty hard to track down the worst of the villains of that regime to hold them accountable).
And, while there might be an occasion where a few slip through, they don't try to pretend that the Third Reich was anything but evil.
As people STILL TRY TO DO with the Confederacy.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the comments on this thread, there is a pretty good chance that there is at least one racist commenting, who is working so very hard to excuse every fundamental distinction from a regime founded upon the principle of slavery, which codified slavery as the natural right of the white man, and the natural condition of the "negro."
And the distinction of the existence of slavery in the rest of the world, which overall tended to see it in a negative light, eventually outlawing it.
That they are working so hard to pretend this distinction does not exists tends to suggest an ulterior motive.
Polonius wrote: There is no amount of "good treatment" that mitigates the grinding oppression of unregulated slavery in the American South. Families could be split up, education was forbidden, violence and terror were common, women were frequently and repeatedly raped, and there was nothing you could do to better your situation.
A minority might prefer three hots and a cot under such terms, but for most people, that level of horror is too great to bear.
Wait, what? In fact, didn't millions upon millions of people choose that state of affairs over death, throughout thousands of years of human history? It's been pretty clearly shown that if your choices are slavery or death, almost everyone chooses slavery. That was a weird post.
That is pushing really hard against the definition of the word "prefer."
Just because one chooses between two horrific choices does little to make either choice their preffered choice.
This is ignoring the necessities and contingencies involved.
And, even if something is too much to bear, people might remain alive under such condition, yet remain totally or wholly broken human beings. They are effectively dead, existing solely for a moment to reclaim their lives. Or, they could just be grinding toward death, unable to face actual death.
Meeting people like that will allow an understanding of that condition.
Singling out the Confederacy and its iconography as evil is two dimensional hypocritical and retrograde.
Those who want the iconography are saying that the Confederacy is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.
It is revisionism of the worst order because it is so highly selective, the Victorian age was an age of colonial brutality and theft on an industrial scale. It was commonplace for the European powers and descendant cultures, including the United States to do the same sort of things that people were put on trial at Nuremburg for a century later.
The United States, Confederate States, France, United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Holland and Russia all did things in the 19th century that placed them on equal footing with the Third Reich.
The main difference was that by the 1930's society had moved on and these actions were no longer acceptable, and the victims of the Third Reich were not pre-agrarian tribes but advanced societies.
The further back in history you go the harsher things get and the more extreme measures were commonplace. it gets to a point where its not even bigoted anymore. Jefferson was a cultured man, not a savage, in his age blacks were inferior, end of, and he wasn't a racist for thinking such because the society of the time didn't think as we do. More recently it was unthinkable to allow females to have a political stake in society except by accident of birth, and some rare exceptions. This wasn't sexism, it was the common sense of the time. Even recently gay marriage was unthinkable, and that wasn't homophobic either, just normal. Todays cultured man is still likely tomorrows bigot. People a hundred years time will look back on our attitudes and see us as screaming bigots if they don't place us in our time, there is even a god guess as to how.
I dont like condemnation of the Confederacy because we really are no better, neither are you, however the politically correct guilt trip is an overwhelming political movement and it is stiffling free thought.
In the midst of this an important chapter of American history is about to go down the memory hole, and you will be far poorer than you might realise for it.
Orlanth wrote: Singling out the Confederacy and its iconography as evil is two dimensional hypocritical and retrograde.
Those who want the iconography are saying that the Confederacy is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.
It is revisionism of the worst order because it is so highly selective, the Victorian age was an age of colonial brutality and theft on an industrial scale. It was commonplace for the European powers and descendant cultures, including the United States to do the same sort of things that people were put on trial at Nuremburg for a century later.
The United States, Confederate States, France, United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Holland and Russia all did things in the 19th century that placed them on equal footing with the Third Reich.
The main difference was that by the 1930's society had moved on and these actions were no longer acceptable, and the victims of the Third Reich were not pre-agrarian tribes but advanced societies.
The further back in history you go the harsher things get and the more extreme measures were commonplace. it gets to a point where its not even bigoted anymore. Jefferson was a cultured man, not a savage, in his age blacks were inferior, end of, and he wasn't a racist for thinking such because the society of the time didn't think as we do. More recently it was unthinkable to allow females to have a political stake in society except by accident of birth, and some rare exceptions. This wasn't sexism, it was the common sense of the time. Even recently gay marriage was unthinkable, and that wasn't homophobic either, just normal. Todays cultured man is still likely tomorrows bigot. People a hundred years time will look back on our attitudes and see us as screaming bigots if they don't place us in our time, there is even a god guess as to how.
I dont like condemnation of the Confederacy because we really are no better, neither are you, however the politically correct guilt trip is an overwhelming political movement and it is stiffling free thought.
In the midst of this an important chapter of American history is about to go down the memory hole, and you will be far poorer than you might realise for it.
So state government buildings should fly the flag of an illegal, rebellious state that made war on the United States and existed with the express purpose of imposing slavery and white supremacy because... Why? Because history is a thing? What is your point exactly? Nothing is being forgotten, were just calling a spade a spade. Confederate flags belong in museums and on the front porches of racists' houses.
Also, you're wrong. Not allowing women to hold political office was sexism then, too. It was just widely accepted sexism.
So state government buildings should fly the flag of an illegal, rebellious state that made war on the United States and existed with the express purpose of imposing slavery and white supremacy because... Why? Because history is a thing? What is your point exactly? Nothing is being forgotten, were just calling a spade a spade. Confederate flags belong in museums and on the front porches of racists' houses.
You fly the flag of the seditious traitorous, proto-Nazi United States of America on flagpoles, it is just as evil.
You are conditioned to overlook the truths of the above. Black slaves matter, Native American genocide doesnt. Jefferson Davis was a seditious traitor, George Washington was a loyal patriot.
My beloved Union Flag is dripping with a lot of spilled blood, so is the history of everyone else.
Confederate guilt is partisan and disproportionate, and historically invalid.
Also, you're wrong. Not allowing women to hold political office was sexism then, too. It was just widely accepted sexism.
By 1910 this was so, but throughout the 19th century womens rights were a back issue, and it was a perfectly acceptable opinion to think that if you gave women the vote you would trivialise debate and make a mockery of politics, because women thing on different things to men. Political truth is relative, always was.
You and I are tomorrows screaming bigots, we don't know it yet, that is why in a fair observation of history we are not.
So state government buildings should fly the flag of an illegal, rebellious state that made war on the United States and existed with the express purpose of imposing slavery and white supremacy because... Why? Because history is a thing? What is your point exactly? Nothing is being forgotten, were just calling a spade a spade. Confederate flags belong in museums and on the front porches of racists' houses.
You fly the flag of the seditious traitorous, proto-Nazi United States of America on flagpoles, it is just as evil.
You are conditioned to overlook the truths of the above. Black slaves matter, Native American genocide doesnt. Jefferson Davis was a seditious traitor, George Washington was a loyal patriot.
My beloved Union Flag is dripping with a lot of spilled blood, so is the history of everyone else.
Confederate guilt is partisan and disproportionate, and historically invalid.
George Washington was, yes, also a traitor. The distinction is that being a traitor is not an inherently bad thing. Committing treason to establish a representative government for example is good, doing it to maintain the American Holocaust is bad. Also, you need to stop thinking in a binary. It is possible to condemn the genocide of the First Nations and also chattel slavery.
But okay, lets take your example and Godwin it out. Would you be okay with German governmental buildings flying the swastika banner? Why or why not?
The Confederacy, unlike the US, was created SPECIFICALLY to maintain slavery. And no, there was nothing proto-Nazi about the United States in 1776. You throw that word around as if it doesn't have a definition.
Also, you're wrong. Not allowing women to hold political office was sexism then, too. It was just widely accepted sexism.
By 1910 this was so, but throughout the 19th century womens rights were a back issue, and it was a perfectly acceptable opinion to think that if you gave women the vote you would trivialise debate and make a mockery of politics, because women thing on different things to men. Political truth is relative, always was.
You and I are tomorrows screaming bigots, we don't know it yet, that is why in a fair observation of history we are not.
It was still sexism. And by the way, the reason it changed is because people forced it to change. It didn't just happen. The same thing is happening right now with the battle flag. It is a symbol of slavery and white supremacy. Not only was it created with the express purpose of being so, it has since been adopted by white supremacist groups throughout the South. This has been the case since desegregation. This is what it represents and as such should not be on the flag poles of state buildings.
George Washington was, yes, also a traitor. The distinction is that being a traitor is not an inherently bad thing. Committing treason to establish a representative government for example is good, doing it to maintain the American Holocaust is bad. Also, you need to stop thinking in a binary. It is possible to condemn the genocide of the First Nations and also chattel slavery.
Progress, now you need to take the thought a step further. We we dont judge one, we shouldnt judge other. This isnt thinking in binary, its just being consistent for the historical record;
But okay, lets take your example and Godwin it out. Would you be okay with German governmental buildings flying the swastika banner? Why or why not?
This was explained earlier on another thread, the political swastika is an internationally banned symbol. It was also explained on the thread just just quoted, the Nazis were different as to their choice of victim and their timing.
At the time of the confederacy de facto slavery was still acceptable, it was still occurring in the north, and colonialism was effectively indistinguishable from slavery anyway.
And no, there was nothing proto-Nazi about the United States in 1776. You throw that word around as if it doesn't have a definition.
It doesn't, but its understood in context.
However the parallels between colonial societies bloodshed and more recent horrors is there. The prime difference between Spain and the UK and Nazi Germany is about two centuries. sensibilities evolve over time, the sensibilities that condemn the Confederacy weren't really condemnable until that turn of the 20th century. You could still make the comment, but it was standard hypocritical propaganda. It is to Lincoln's credit that people are still buying his bs.
No thats revisionist. First its normal, then it becomes abnormal, then comes the change. Its a process of stages. In the first condition is not bigotry, it's good thinking. Hence Jefferson's outlook.
The same thing is happening right now with the battle flag. It is a symbol of slavery and white supremacy.
No. First because one the Confederacy is dead. Second it places a direct moral judgement on the use of the symbology ignoring the truth that it can be used for multiple purpose as a heritage symbol.
Not only was it created with the express purpose of being so, it has since been adopted by white supremacist groups throughout the South. This has been the case since desegregation. This is what it represents and as such should not be on the flag poles of state buildings.
But Obama can use it to get elected. So....tell me, what type of white supremacist is he?
George Washington was, yes, also a traitor. The distinction is that being a traitor is not an inherently bad thing. Committing treason to establish a representative government for example is good, doing it to maintain the American Holocaust is bad. Also, you need to stop thinking in a binary. It is possible to condemn the genocide of the First Nations and also chattel slavery.
Progress, now you need to take the thought a step further. We we dont judge one, we shouldnt judge other. This isnt thinking in binary, its just being consistent for the historical record;
Oh, Christ. You're stretching hard. That is absolutely thinking in binary.
I mean, you do know that contemporary historians largely consider the confederacy to be a half-baked, illegal rebellion against the legitimate elected government in order to protect slavery, right? It has been judged because it deserves judgement. You are not being consistent with anything, really.
But okay, lets take your example and Godwin it out. Would you be okay with German governmental buildings flying the swastika banner? Why or why not?
This was explained earlier on another thread, the political swastika is an internationally banned symbol. It was also explained on the thread just just quoted, the Nazis were different as to their choice of victim and their timing.
At the time of the confederacy de facto slavery was still acceptable, it was still occurring in the north, and colonialism was effectively indistinguishable from slavery anyway.
First, colonialism is an incredibly amorphous, huge concept, varied in its application and practices by context and example. Slavery is slaver, it is an act, like murder. Colonialism and slavery can not be compared like that. Its like saying sports is indistinguishable from cycling.
Secondly, slavery was not wholly acceptable throughout the US, and certainly not the world. If that were the case then there would be no distinction between free and slave state, abolitionist agitation or political violence in places like Kansas.
And no, there was nothing proto-Nazi about the United States in 1776. You throw that word around as if it doesn't have a definition.
It doesn't, but its understood in context.
However the parallels between colonial societies bloodshed and more recent horrors is there. The prime difference between Spain and the UK and Nazi Germany is about two centuries. sensibilities evolve over time, the sensibilities that condemn the Confederacy weren't really condemnable until that turn of the 20th century. You could still make the comment, but it was standard hypocritical propaganda. It is to Lincoln's credit that people are still buying his bs.
The colonial and imperialist past of spain and the UK are massively different than the Nazi ideology. Both were terrible, terrible things and don't get me wrong, I love dragging your country's moral history through the mud, but the Nazi ideology was unique in its machinery and part of that is why showing the swastika just doesn't compare to the Spanish or UK flag.
the sensibilities of the Confederacy were absolutely condemnable and plenty of people condemned them at the time. You're taking the fact that the Union didn't engage in the war as a crusade to abolish slavery from the get go to incredible lengths to justify the Confederacy. Make no mistake, for the Confederacy, the war was about slavery from day one.
No thats revisionist. First its normal, then it becomes abnormal, then comes the change. Its a process of stages. In the first condition is not bigotry, it's good thinking. Hence Jefferson's outlook.
It was still sexism. Its a word with a definition that applies. "They thought it was a good idea" is not a justification for slavery.
The same thing is happening right now with the battle flag. It is a symbol of slavery and white supremacy.
No. First because one the Confederacy is dead. Second it places a direct moral judgement on the use of the symbology ignoring the truth that it can be used for multiple purpose as a heritage symbol.
Again, you're going all or nothing on this for no reason other than it fits your narrative. Sure, it can be a heritage symbol. I could easily make the case that the swastika is a heritage symbol, especially if I was a racist.
Not only was it created with the express purpose of being so, it has since been adopted by white supremacist groups throughout the South. This has been the case since desegregation. This is what it represents and as such should not be on the flag poles of state buildings.
But Obama can use it to get elected. So....tell me, what type of white supremacist is he?
Out of curiosity, have you ever been the Southern US?
The Confederacy, unlike the US, was created SPECIFICALLY to maintain slavery.
Thats about as accurate as saying America exists to turn th Altantic into cold bewed tea.
Quit white washing history already. the confederation formed on the ideal that white men where superior to black men. Don't make me quote the decloration and causes of scedeing states again.
The confederacy was specifically formed to maintain slavery now and for all future time.
and in current news:
Today 2 people got arrested for taking down the klans flag, and who offers to bails them out and pay their legal fees? Michael Moore. The guy who made everyone doubt climate change was real because he went over the top with it. I have him on my dog house for that, then he goes and does this. The bbc had a article about her and mentioned that flag went up to protest against de-segragation. Which is why I cringe when people say to leave it up for heritage and history.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33297625 "It was first flown in 1962 in protest at the growing civil rights movement and has been a source of rancour and controversy in the state ever since."
the flags heritage over the city hall is a symbol of protesting civil rights, that is it's heritage and that's why it needs to come down. So if you think the flag should stay up for heritage reasons, you're saying to leave it up to protest civil rights.
?
