I have no idea what to write i am no good at introductions but this is my first post and i felt this would be a good way to start. I am an Imperial Guard player and i was just wondering what you think of my army. It is the theme i would realy appreciate feedback regarding my chosen theme.

I have gone for a civil war theme based on the south. I just want to clear up that I have no racist views and have have been extremely careful with what I have included. This is kinda embarrassing to mention but the idea came from the film the good the bad and the ugly. When I saw it I wanted a western themed army and in England there is nothing much more American the confederates. I chose the south for numerous reasons like I use to have the play station game Dukes of Hazzard and there are so many references to the confederates in my town like the garage Rebel motors which is represented by the rebel flag and I am a Lynard Skynard fan. I have talked about the idea with GW staff and all say it is a cool theme. That said there is very little hype about the confederates in the UK and I talked to my friends about it and they say there is nothing wrong with it. I would appreciate your opinions on the topic. I have a few pictures of the army and a few of my favourite conversions. As said it is not created to offend anyone and if you are offended I do apologise.

Most of the army has some sort of conversion like the vendetta with the long single tail fin, outriders, chimera to manticore and my favourite which is the land speeder which counts as the devil dog which is based on the doge 1969 charger or the “General Lee.”

I would also like to know how to delete the thread as i have placed the same message in two other areas for intro and army lists. I would be greatful for any help.

HA HA!

Nice General Lee there. Curious how do you use it in your army? Is it a Sentinel?

Very nice!

Now just as a heads up, this does technically belong in the Painting & Modeling forum, since we're discussing your paintjob and conversions, but that's alright.

That said, I like the concept, and the conversions are definitely very nice... especially that land speeder turned buggy.

You may want to be careful with such phrases as, "there is nothing much more American than the Confederates." A lot of people from the North will vehemently disagree with you.

But anyway, very nice concept, and I don't see anything remotely racist about it (which isn't what the Confederacy stood for anyway), so, go for it. Keep this theme going.

Although I will insist on eventually seeing a General Robert E. Lee conversion (or a closeup if one of those minis is already one).

The lanspeeder counts as a devil do and when im on about the confederates being American it is what most people in the UK assume them as. I have been thinking of a General lee conversion. Any ideas will be helpfull. Thanks

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440023a&prodId=prod20020&rootCatGameStyle=

See that guy on the right? Notice his head? Cut that off and attach it to an appropriate IG model and Ta DA! You have yourself a genuine Robert E Lee conversion.

This army needs Parrots and Napoleons for its heavy weapons. Conversion opportunities galore.

Not keen on the Southern Cross there though. You shouldn't have that on there or have it modified. You might get your ass beat and/or shot in certain locales for that, with justification.

The General Lee needs Daisy Duke hanging onto the back of course...

@Red_Lives:

The beard's good, but the hat is WAY off. I'd say no on that mini for the Lee conversion.

Actually, your best bet is to go third party for the head. Remember that if at least 70% of the model is still GW product, it's tournament legal, so head swaps are no big deal, and I'm sure you can find a good Lee head out there if you do some searching.

And really the head's the most difficult part, once you've got that it's just some minor GS work to get his uniform right.

It's a shame you can't turn your CCS into Rough Riders, 'cause that would be PERFECT for Lee.

here's some interesting brigade and other flags that might be more appropriate.
http://txscv.tripod.com/csa.htm

Frazzled wrote:here's some interesting brigade and other flags that might be more appropriate.
http://txscv.tripod.com/csa.htm

To be fair, he IS in the UK. If he brings this army to the States he might have issues in some places, but I dunno if that's how it works over there.

Although General Lee's flag is perfect for his CCS!

Yuk a team of racists Booo to the stars and bars. Why would any of those flags be more appropriate? They all stand for the same bigotry and hatred. Maybe for you next army you will do a klan army wont that be fun.

MDizzle wrote:Yuk a team of racists Booo to the stars and bars. Why would any of those flags be more appropriate? They all stand for the same bigotry and hatred. Maybe for you next army you will do a klan army wont that be fun.

See what I mean? Some people just don't get it.

Read up on your history, man. The CSA had nothing to do with bigotry or racism, and still doesn't.

MDizzle wrote:Yuk a team of racists Booo to the stars and bars. Why would any of those flags be more appropriate? They all stand for the same bigotry and hatred. Maybe for you next army you will do a klan army wont that be fun.

I would probably have a good response to that... If I could understand it

Oh yes, and the models are quite nice. Perhaps highlight the black armour on the tanks a bit and your golden.

I'm gonna drop into my history nerd mode here...

Calling it the Civil War is inaccurate. A civil war is fought between a nation itself. The "Civil War" was fought between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. Two different countries here.

On topic! I think it's a great idea! I've never seen an army like this before and hope you continue to flesh it out. And for an objective marker, you could make a sign that reads "Washington."

CrashUSAR wrote:I'm gonna drop into my history nerd mode here...

Calling it the Civil War is inaccurate. A civil war is fought between a nation itself. The "Civil War" was fought between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. Two different countries here.

This is a good point. What we in the States call "The Civil War" wasn't really much of a civil war at all, but a war fought between two independent countries (although the North did not see it that way). A civil war is what happens when a single country is fighting against itself.

Even so, "The Civil War" is the moniker most commonly applied by Americans when referring to that war in the mid-1800s between a bunch of our northern states and a bunch of our southern states.

CrashUSAR wrote:And for an objective marker, you could make a sign that reads "Washington."

Ha! Yes!

This is a great idea.

No it was a Civil war because the CSA was not recognized as real country. Just claiming to be a different country one day doesn't make it so. If the south had Won the war or at least fought to a stalemate and legally had itself recognized as a country in a treaty then it wouldn't have been a civil war. But Hey we won so it was a civil war since the winning side never recognized the CSA as a separate country.

Red_Lives wrote:No it was a Civil war because the CSA was not recognized as real country. Just claiming to be a different country one day doesn't make it so. If the south had Won the war or at least fought to a stalemate and legally had itself recognized as a country in a treaty then it wouldn't have been a civil war. But Hey we won so it was a civil war since the winning side never recognized the CSA as a separate country.

That all depends on who you ask.

Who recognizes a country? Its citizens? Its neighboring countries? A piece of paper?

You absolutely can say, "This is now an independent country, seperate from the United States."

Who's to say otherwise? The UN? Not all countries generally considered to be such are currently recognized by the UN or NATO.

I'd say the CSA was an independent country until the North proved otherwise.

But this is all very off-topic.

So we should probably stop discussing it.

Silly british, not getting our wars.
We only had 6 wars without you y'know, we do know how to do it ourselves!

Anyway, I personally wouldn't use the confederate flag, as it both means things to certain people (one of my ansestors was shot in the back on the yankee side) and some right-wing loonies have misinterpreteted it as the Nativist Flag (TM).

OP, you need to take some pics of the infantry head on (the only pics are from above in the first post) to show off some of the detail. as for nothing more "american", considering that the whole premise of their rebellion was that they didn't want to be part of the USA. as for the nomenclature of the war, it IS the american civil war and recognized as such world wide.

it's a nice idea. mordian esque.

as for your worries for racism, as long as you don't have any open insults usually people won't mind.

noone can say "Your a racist because you like the confedarte uniform."

thats like saying your a racist because your X nationality.

as for Klawz, I feel that calling Right wings loonies is slightly unfair. [I do realise that thats now what you mean.] ;D

And as for that entire argument, Confederates were facists, by definition.

I think it's a great idea. I'm quick to disagree with your assessment of what being American means however. We're not all dressed like Col. Sanders sipping sweet tea from the rockers on the porches of our ranch houses. Of course, I'm in the north, so my perception could also be skewed. At any rate, don't do anything obviously stupid (racist) with the army and you'll probably be fine. Especially when you calmly remind anyone who has a problem with it of the numerous socio-political justifications for the war.

@Klawz:

Remember, every group, political or otherwise, is full of loonies. The important thing to do is to make sure that you're on the side of the "Nice friendly loonies who poke fun at the _BAD_ loonies."

Frazzled wrote:here's some interesting brigade and other flags that might be more appropriate.
http://txscv.tripod.com/csa.htm

Hmm, I guess the confederacy did win in the EU (6th flag from the top)

This is a awesome idea, I havent seen anything like it before..almost makes me wanna do a themed guard army...oh well

dont worry about the confederate flag, your in the UK, and most people in the states wont give you trouble about it, as most gamers are intelligent enough to realize the WoNA wasnt about slavery

The Emperor shall rise again!

Mordian, I think you've executed this army pretty well, I especially like the Rough Riders with the hats, very stylish and historically-accurate. My only critique is that it seems that you put your paint on pretty thick, which makes you lose crispness in your details, though that may just be the way the photos were taken.

MDizzle wrote:Yuk a team of racists Booo to the stars and bars. Why would any of those flags be more appropriate? They all stand for the same bigotry and hatred. Maybe for you next army you will do a klan army wont that be fun.

I hate to be rude, but I feel the need to point out how short-sighted and idiotic this statement is (unless, of course, it's meant to be sarcastic, but I don't get that feeling). Let's list some other fascist military forces/political powers/cultures that "stood for bigotry and hatred" by raiding other societies and taking/keeping slaves: Romans, Vikings, Mongols, Egyptians, Aztecs... I could go on. Surely 40k has no place for armies inspired by any of those deplorable cultures... except for the Ultramarines, Space Wolves, White Scars, Thousand Sons, Rainbow Warriors... so yeah. In more modern times, the Soviet Union caused massive amounts of death among their own people under tyrannical rulership, and yet you can still use a guy called Colonel Chenkov and Commissars in Russian-style hats to execute your own troops. These are all canon forces in 40k, and yet nobody makes any assumptions about their players based on where they got the visual inspiration for their uniforms. Assuming someone is a racist or making a bigoted statement for having Confederacy-inspired uniforms on his Guard is just as foolish as assuming he worships Jupiter because he plays Ultramarines. Sometimes you just enjoy the visual style of a culture and that's all it means.

I hope MDizzle isn't making assumptions about a broad group of people based on a single aspect of that group, because that would be bigotry! Oh, the irony. In my experience, it's usually the case that the people who perceive racism most often are themselves racist in some way. I think the majority of society has really grown past such petty concerns.

/

^ Wow, couldn't have said it better myself!

There is a little bit of separation between Egyptians or Romans and The Southern Cross in terms of present day associations.

Regardless of what the Confederate flag actually stood for in history it is commonly used by racist rednecks as a symbol of identification. All the guys driving around with it on their pickup trucks in my rural, conservative and slightly racist/homophobic home town aren't history buffs, they are displaying for another purpose...

Likewise we all know the origins of the symbol that Hitler co-opted but that doesn't change the fact that it has a modern association and intended meaning when used by racists, Neo-natzis, and so forth.

That being said paint your models how you want, they are yours after all, but don't be surprised when you meet people that have an emotional reaction to you using such symbology.

Would I be welcome in all of England with an IRA themed IG army?

CT GAMER wrote:Would I be welcome in all of England with an IRA themed IG army?

Not really a fair comparison... that's not so much comparable to a CSA themed IG army as it is to a Taliban-themed IG army in the US, or a Hamas-themed IG army in Israel.

SaintHazard wrote:You may want to be careful with such phrases as, "there is nothing much more American than the Confederates." A lot of people from the North will vehemently disagree with you.

I'm one of them. Its kind of like saying there isn't anything more German than Nazis, or there isn't anything more English than suppressing less developed societies and robbing them of their natural resources. I'm not personally offended by the comment, I just don't understand it. It's less than five years of our history with only 1/3 of our people, there are a lot of things a lot more American than Confederates.

SaintHazard wrote:But anyway, very nice concept, and I don't see anything remotely racist about it (which isn't what the Confederacy stood for anyway)

You're abosolutely right. It stood for state's rights; to be racist and keep blacks as slaves.

Back on topic, I don't have a problem with the army, but if you had it over here the default assumption would be you have some sort of affinity/sympathy for the CSA which generally equals racist hick. Maybe its not right, but that's the way it is.

Down, boy. Listen to your signature.

Actually slavery was only one of a myriad of issues the CSA was addressing when it was formed. A lot of people looooove to tout the fact that the South still had slaves, but guess what? So did the North.

It doesn't help that the South was around 95% farmland and plantations, and its entire economy would have collapsed without farm workers, but lo and behold, they found a better way than slavery.

A few corrupt Southern beaurocrats does not a nationwide political agenda make.

I don't see anything wrong with the army. It's a cool idea. I mean I'm building an actual confederate army right now for a Blackpowder game. I don't see much of a difference if Mordian gives them all Las weapons and calls them guard.

I mean a sci fi army with a southern US theme isn't an alien concept. Hell just play the new Starcraft.

SaintHazard wrote:Down, boy. Listen to your signature.

Actually slavery was only one of a myriad of issues the CSA was addressing when it was formed. A lot of people looooove to tout the fact that the South still had slaves, but guess what? So did the North.

It doesn't help that the South was around 95% farmland and plantations, and its entire economy would have collapsed without farm workers, but lo and behold, they found a better way than slavery.

A few corrupt Southern beaurocrats does not a nationwide political agenda make.

I tried to be brief but I get worked up about this topic.

Anyway you slice it the war was about slavery and the Confederate nation was created to protect slavery. Any other reason for war you can come up with is rooted in slavery.

States Rights: To have slaves
Protect their economy: built on slave labor
To preserve their culture: Of land owning aristocracy with slaves

I'll admit the removal of slavery would have been/was absolutely devasting to the south in many many ways. But listing those effects (such as the economy collapsing) as a reason for war misses the point that almost everything in southern life at the time was rooted in slavery.

And a few Northern border states had some slaves for part of the war, which they gave up voluntarily. Unlike the south which took 2 million solidiers and 600K deaths to be convinced. And the notion they found a "better way" is laughable. They were forced to find something other than slavery and then their alternative was sharecropping and systematically oppressing the uneducated blacks for almost another 100 years.

I'm not saying you are racist if you feel like this institution is part of your history. It's fine if you feel that way. But don't try and rewrite history. Embrace it for what it is or find something else to indentify with.

Lol thats awsome!

SaintHazard wrote:Down, boy. Listen to your signature.

Actually slavery was only one of a myriad of issues the CSA was addressing when it was formed. A lot of people looooove to tout the fact that the South still had slaves, but guess what? So did the North.

while i agree slavery was NOT a motive for the civil war at the onset (it was later tacked on as a moral issue), that's the only fact you've gotten right.

http://www.slavenorth.com/


lol, first you call the civil war not a civil war and now you're comparing slavery in the north to the south at the time of the civil war? i guess you're *technically* right in that around a dozen slaves may have been present in the north around the time of the onset of the war but that doesn't make it any less of a ridiculous comparison. the southern economy was *BASED* on slavery just as the northern one was on cheap immigrant labor. dude, i'm not sure what kind of revisionist history homeschooling you got in the south (it's popular down here) but you should probably lay off the the historical commentary because it simply doesn't agree with either the facts or general consensus.

i personally don't have a problem with the army but i could see other players having one due to historical reasons just like i won't play a non-historical game involving a nazi or WWII german themed army. unfortunately, the south and it's look/feel/symbology has been co opted by radical racist groups and effectively become their's in the popular media. not everyone who carries a confederate flag in their back pocket is a racist but almost every racist in the south carries a confederate flag in theirs. if you paint your army like this, you WILL have to deal with people that assume your motives are something other than being a southern rock music or dukes of hazard fan.

warboss wrote: if you paint your army like this, you WILL have to deal with people that assume your motives are something other than being a southern rock music or dukes of hazard fan.

Here he would. I really doubt people in the UK would feel the same way. So as long the OP isn't planning on flying to the states just play with toy soldiers I think he is fine.

You both need to chill out a little, but props at the very least to ArtfcllyFlvrd for keeping a civil tongue.

I'm not even going to dignify warboss's post with a response until it's reworded to exclude the personal attacks.

It's completely untrue to say the the entirety of the South's political agenda boils down to slavery. What you're looking at is a political agenda that boils down to an economy sustained by agriculture, which does not require slavery to prosper. Were many Southern politicians very stupid in holding onto slavery the way they did? Absolutely, nobody is refuting that, but put yourself in their position. They're sitting on an economic system built upon the purchase of slaves and the revenue generated by cotton, tobacco, wheat, corn, and, to a lesser extent, fruit. They had very few options when it came to supplying the labor required to keep this economy afloat. The North had Irish immigrants flooding their labor pool, who would do for a dime what an English or German descendent would only do for a quarter. They had a huge labor pool to draw from. The South did not. Does that justify purchasing boatfuls of slaves? Absolutely not. But the problems were such, and in hindsight, while it cannot be condoned, justified, or, really, anything but vilified, it can at least be understood.

Along with the economic issues, however, came a number of other political issues that drove the war effort. For example, the yankee politicians in Washington saw fit to raise plantation owners' taxes to almost three times what the average landowner in the North paid.

There was a lot more than just slavery involved in the South's decision to go to war. Did it play a part? Yes, I never said it didn't. Was the South and everything it stood for entirely about slavery? No. You'd have to be wearing blinders to think so.

For all of those that want to poo poo and say the stars and bars are okay to fly and it's no big deal because I don't get some BS semantic point you brought up. Make no mistake that flag in today's context mean racism bottom line and if you want to play an army like that go ahead but I also have a right to say I think it sucks and I hope all of your models melt in a tragic accident. Good Day.

SaintHazard wrote:You both need to chill out a little, but props at the very least to ArtfcllyFlvrd for keeping a civil tongue.

I'm not even going to dignify warboss's post with a response until it's reworded to exclude the personal attacks.

It's completely untrue to say the the entirety of the South's political agenda boils down to slavery. What you're looking at is a political agenda that boils down to an economy sustained by agriculture, which does not require slavery to prosper. Were many Southern politicians very stupid in holding onto slavery the way they did? Absolutely, nobody is refuting that, but put yourself in their position. They're sitting on an economic system built upon the purchase of slaves and the revenue generated by cotton, tobacco, wheat, corn, and, to a lesser extent, fruit. They had very few options when it came to supplying the labor required to keep this economy afloat. The North had Irish immigrants flooding their labor pool, who would do for a dime what an English or German descendent would only do for a quarter. They had a huge labor pool to draw from. The South did not. Does that justify purchasing boatfuls of slaves? Absolutely not. But the problems were such, and in hindsight, while it cannot be condoned, justified, or, really, anything but vilified, it can at least be understood.

Along with the economic issues, however, came a number of other political issues that drove the war effort. For example, the yankee politicians in Washington saw fit to raise plantation owners' taxes to almost three times what the average landowner in the North paid.

There was a lot more than just slavery involved in the South's decision to go to war. Did it play a part? Yes, I never said it didn't. Was the South and everything it stood for entirely about slavery? No. You'd have to be wearing blinders to think so.

In your first paragraph you’re basically agreeing with what I wrote. They were concerned about their agriculture. Their agriculture was based in slavery, and they thought slavery was going away. So the root issue is slavery going away.

All of the political issues between North and South at the time had to do with cutting off the expansion of slavery into new territories, and the rights of slaves that had escaped to the North.

The cultural issues all revolved around the class structure of land owners and slaves.

I have never heard of a tax disparity between north and south. My guess is the origin of the disparity was to try and level the playing field between northern land owners who had to pay for labor and southern land owners who didn’t. Slavery again.

The only differences between the two groups of people is slavery. They had the same governmental system, the same political traditions, same language, religion, and non competing economies. There was no reason to go to war but slavery.

It wasn’t just an issue, it was the issue. All other issues combined would not have been enough to go to war and slavery alone was.

I’m not saying they were wrong for thinking slavery was getting snuffed out. It in many ways was. Where I differ from them is in thinking that that is a bad thing. And I’ve never met anyone today who thinks slavery is good. That is why it is so important for people who identify with the CSA to say the issue wasn’t slavery. I’m sorry but it was virtually the only issue.

Now your average Joe grunt in the CSA army may not have been fighting for slavery. He may have been fighting for his state, his land, his family, or just to pay the bills. But the whole reason the Confederate army existed for him to fight in was slavery.

Fair enough, but I still maintain that there are plenty of political points that both you and I are missing that made the South's political agenda very much like any you see today: complicated enough to make your average Joe sit down and listen to what each party has to say about his issue, and largely ignore the rest. And I think that that's what anyone who maintains that slavery was the South's entire agenda is doing, more or less.

And here's another point for you: can we really vilify going to war based on economic needs and then turn around and look at our country today, going to war based on economic needs?

Who's to say that a hundred and fifty years from now, some person on some internet messageboard won't say, "That USMC themed IG army is wrong, because it represents acquiring fossil fuels?"

I mean, really. Can we?

And based on that alone, is a CSA-themed IG army really wrong?

Maybe what the CSA, at the time, stood for was wrong. I'm not denying that.

But that shouldn't mean we should ignore it, pretend it never existed, and paint our plastic soldier men like bunnies and unicorns.

MDizzle wrote:Yuk a team of racists Booo to the stars and bars. Why would any of those flags be more appropriate? They all stand for the same bigotry and hatred. Maybe for you next army you will do a klan army wont that be fun.

I'll let the insult slide even though its at best trolling. On a personal note: I love people who wouldn't dare say such things to me in person.
A battleflag without the Southern Cross is just a regimental battle flag. Hence the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:

CrashUSAR wrote:I'm gonna drop into my history nerd mode here...

Calling it the Civil War is inaccurate. A civil war is fought between a nation itself. The "Civil War" was fought between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. Two different countries here.

This is a good point. What we in the States call "The Civil War" wasn't really much of a civil war at all, but a war fought between two independent countries (although the North did not see it that way). A civil war is what happens when a single country is fighting against itself.

Even so, "The Civil War" is the moniker most commonly applied by Americans when referring to that war in the mid-1800s between a bunch of our northern states and a bunch of our southern states.

CrashUSAR wrote:And for an objective marker, you could make a sign that reads "Washington."

Ha! Yes!

This is a great idea.

Incorrect. Its properly titled the War of Northern Aggression, but we'll let that slide.

@ MDizzle

I think you are being a little overly sensitive. The guy is not from the south, the guy doesn't have anything distateful, I think you are taking it a little too personal.

@ OP

I think a muted form of MDizzle's reaction would be the norm over here. At least north of the Mason Dixon Line.

Frazzled wrote:I'll let the insult slide even though its at best trolling. On a personal note: I love people who wouldn't dare say such things to me in person.
A battleflag without the Southern Cross is just a regimental battle flag. Hence the point.

I would argue for keeping the Southern Cross... in my opinion, a battleflag without the Southern Cross would be diluting the theme.

Frazzled wrote:Incorrect. Its properly titled the War of Northern Aggression, but we'll let that slide.

Fair enough.

Being from a neutral state, I will officially accept either title.

I think the thing to take away from this discussion is yes Mordian. Your army will be controversial mostly because you included the confederate flag in there. Though it's clear to me that you included the flag because you are a Dukes of Hazard fan. I can't imagine that you actually have an opinion on an almost two century old american political debate, which evidently is still quite heated.

I'm from the North BTW and I don't mind his army. Like I said before, I'm making a Confederate army myself for a historical game. It was a part of history after all. Do the French go crazy when someone makes a napoleonic army?

Klawz wrote:Silly british, not getting our wars.
We only had 6 wars without you y'know, we do know how to do it ourselves!

Anyway, I personally wouldn't use the confederate flag, as it both means things to certain people (one of my ansestors was shot in the back on the yankee side) and some right-wing loonies have misinterpreteted it as the Nativist Flag (TM).

Indeed. Approach like a German army list. Color patterns are fine. Civil war guys fine and much opportunities for conversion. Just leave off the Southern Cross. As noted there are a plethora of Corps and Division battleflags. Use them for ideas to make your own.

You still need a Daisy Duke for the General Lee though.

see this is the grand problem w/ america. people with very little knowledge, but very strong opinions are allowed to voice them on public forums and are not only protected by law to voice whatever stupid opinion they have, but are protected by law to such an extent that they think that they're opinion is right and socially acceptable and they are allowed to voice it whenever they damn well please.
so in short i say let this thread remain about little plastic army men

Disclaimer: this is not directed at anyone specificlly, but if your offended by my statement then by all means assume that i meant your posts

I think that's what's great about America. Wasn't that one of the cornerstones of our government at it's inception? Free speech for everyone.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:@ MDizzle

I think a muted form of MDizzle's reaction would be the norm over here. At least north of the Mason Dixon Line.

What gets me mad isn't that the army is themed this way (I'm tolerent as all hell) however its the person carrying the army. Britain support the South during the war by sending them money and guns, however (!), they did so for ullterior motives. The UK (still sore form their defeat in 1812) was eager to see the newly formed Union cast asunder. Therefore, in an effort to divide and destory our country, England supported the South and funded the emmense war over here.


In short, my American fellows, let us not ponit fingers at eachother, let us point fingers and the Brits!


lol, more on topic..... I like the paint scheme, however I'd have made the tanks more steam-punk, like the ironclads of the period.

The Odessey wrote:

lol, more on topic..... I like the paint scheme, however I'd have made the tanks more steam-punk, like the ironclads of the period.

Exactly!

Joetaco wrote:see this is the grand problem w/ america. people with very little knowledge, but very strong opinions are allowed to voice them on public forums and are not only protected by law to voice whatever stupid opinion they have, but are protected by law to such an extent that they think that they're opinion is right and socially acceptable and they are allowed to voice it whenever they damn well please.
so in short i say let this thread remain about little plastic army men

Disclaimer: this is not directed at anyone specificlly, but if your offended by my statement then by all means assume that i meant your posts

Only on the internet can one hold a pair of pink panties aloft and hope to still be taken seriously.

Sorry dude. No dice.

SaintHazard wrote:Fair enough, but I still maintain that there are plenty of political points that both you and I are missing that made the South's political agenda very much like any you see today: complicated enough to make your average Joe sit down and listen to what each party has to say about his issue, and largely ignore the rest. And I think that that's what anyone who maintains that slavery was the South's entire agenda is doing, more or less.

And here's another point for you: can we really vilify going to war based on economic needs and then turn around and look at our country today, going to war based on economic needs?

Who's to say that a hundred and fifty years from now, some person on some internet messageboard won't say, "That USMC themed IG army is wrong, because it represents acquiring fossil fuels?"

I mean, really. Can we?

And based on that alone, is a CSA-themed IG army really wrong?

Maybe what the CSA, at the time, stood for was wrong. I'm not denying that.

But that shouldn't mean we should ignore it, pretend it never existed, and paint our plastic soldier men like bunnies and unicorns.

Whoa now, there are some assumptions in there I definitely don’t agree with.

1. I’m not 100% sure how I feel about economically driven wars. I say no, but I have a hard time thinking there was ever a purely economic war. If everything else between the two countries was fine, wouldn’t they participate peacefully with each other? In every instance I can think of (which is definitely not them all) there was some ideological difference that prevented cooperation and created the economic pressure.
2. I am 100% sure that’s not what we are doing right now. But we’ll have to move this to the off topic forum if you want to continue about that.


I do think slavery was pretty much the south’s entire agenda (or at least the root of it all). Now I don’t think they were holding on to it just for the heck of it. They stuck by it because of all the economic, cultural, and political impacts losing it would have. So it encompassed their whole way of life which made it worth fighting for. I think at this point we’re pretty much on the same page and just arguing potato/pototo.

And I definitely don’t think we should ignore it. I’m not saying we play FoW without Nazis or civil war games without confederates. But when you bring that into a game that has nothing to do with the era it makes it seem like you like it a little too much. That it’s on your mind enough and you care about it enough that you spent lots of time and money making things that have nothing to do with it resemble it. Now for our English friend the part that he cares about and that is on his mind are pop culture references and spaghetti westerns (Although most western movies take place 20-30 years after the war). If an American did the same I really would think the part on his mind that he cares about was white supremacy and keeping blacks down. Maybe I shouldn’t make that jump, but I think a lot of us (at least up here where those symbols are used virtually exclusively by racists) would.

As a proud Southerner, the proper term for the war that occurred between 1861-1865 is "The War of Northern Aggression".

The Confederate Battle Flag represents those proud and noble soldiers righting for state's rights. While the main issue was slavery, what prompted the war was the issue of who determines whether slavery would be allowed, an all powerful group of elitists in Washington, or the States themselves.

Most of those who fought did not own slaves. Indeed, free born Americans of African descent chose to fight for the South as well.


I say keep the army as is.

If there's anything I've learned studying the history of warfare, it's that there's no such thing as a war not based on economics.

Every war is about money or acquisition of some sort. If it's not about acquisition, it's about protecting your own assets.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against this concept. I think that there are very few good reasons to go to war that are not based on acquisition of some sort or another, and going to war over economic necessity is the best among profit-driven reasons to go to war.

But like you said, that's a debate for another thread.

I think you're right that we're basically saying the same thing two different ways, with one major exception: you don't care for the Confederate flag as a symbol, whereas I'm alright with it.

Maybe that's a product of where we live. You live in the North where, like you said, the flag is used almost exclusively by the kind of people with whom you and I would never wish to be associated... whereas here (not quite the South, but we qualify) it's more a symbol of our history and culture, and an important part of what made us who we are today.

SaintHazard wrote:
Maybe that's a product of where we live. You live in the North where, like you said, the flag is used almost exclusively by the kind of people with whom you and I would never wish to be associated... whereas here (not quite the South, but we qualify) it's more a symbol of our history and culture, and an important part of what made us who we are today.

...And mostly still used by racists.

SaintHazard wrote:If there's anything I've learned studying the history of warfare, it's that there's no such thing as a war not based on economics.

Every war is about money or acquisition of some sort. If it's not about acquisition, it's about protecting your own assets.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against this concept. I think that there are very few good reasons to go to war that are not based on acquisition of some sort or another, and going to war over economic necessity is the best among profit-driven reasons to go to war.

But like you said, that's a debate for another thread.

I think you're right that we're basically saying the same thing two different ways, with one major exception: you don't care for the Confederate flag as a symbol, whereas I'm alright with it.

Maybe that's a product of where we live. You live in the North where, like you said, the flag is used almost exclusively by the kind of people with whom you and I would never wish to be associated... whereas here (not quite the South, but we qualify) it's more a symbol of our history and culture, and an important part of what made us who we are today.

And so ends possibly the first meaningful internet argument ever. Everyone go find your loved ones, I think the world is ending.

Frazzled wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:
Maybe that's a product of where we live. You live in the North where, like you said, the flag is used almost exclusively by the kind of people with whom you and I would never wish to be associated... whereas here (not quite the South, but we qualify) it's more a symbol of our history and culture, and an important part of what made us who we are today.

...And mostly still used by racists.

I can't speak for Texas, but in Kentucky, that's not the case (from my experience).

I know several people who have a Confederate flag either hanging outside their house or on their car somewhere, and more than a few who have them printed on their wallets. Not a single one of these people is in any way racist.

I think the Nazi motifs are much more popular with racists in my state than Confederate motifs.

But again, I can't speak for Texas, or the rest of the South. So by and large, you could be correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And so ends possibly the first meaningful internet argument ever. Everyone go find your loved ones, I think the world is ending.

This could have ended poorly, but a few pretty cool people were involved, and it ended well.

Hugs for everyone!

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
But when you bring that into a game that has nothing to do with the era it makes it seem like you like it a little too much. That it’s on your mind enough and you care about it enough that you spent lots of time and money making things that have nothing to do with it resemble it.

Hey, I don't think I can agree with that. 40k (especially IG) is full of memes that have nothing to do with the era, as previously pointed out.

Tallarn - Middle eastern
Voystroyans (Chenkov) - USSR style fascism and brutality to your own people. (and more recent historically than the civil war)
Catachans - Vietnam War (see above)
Space Wolves - Vikings
Mordians - First thing that comes to mind is Mohmar Kadafi (probably misspelling his name)

Just to name a few. With that logic, I could claim that because you (hypothetically) have the beautifully painted Voystroyan conscript army with a lovingly scratchbuilt Chenkov that you have a thing for fascism and idolize Stalin. Maybe for some kicks, I could snidely ask you if you've named your army the Five Year Plan. Really the Imperium in general reeks of fascism, so we're all just terrible people acting out our megalomania by playing this game to begin with anyway. My point is that if you try to vilify something hard enough, you'll find a way.

I think that when people get into these debate it is important to remember history is written by the winners. All history is subject to that rule, even the bible suffers from it. I personally think that its a cool idea and a cool army and within the game that is that. So what if people have misgivings about an icon, surely humanity is past this.

Also, daedalus, great post. If I might add DKoK are based around WW1 Germans and, one could argue this, Steel Legion are loosely base on WW2 Germans (think blitzkrieg)

Edit for extra content.

General Hobbs wrote:

As a proud Southerner, the proper term for the war that occurred between 1861-1865 is "The War of Northern Aggression".

your side only gets to name the wars you win.



it's the civil war.

Signed,

Proud Dakkite from the Land of Lincoln

warboss wrote: your side only gets to name the wars you win.

But if they stuck to that rule they wouldn't get to name any

wizard12 wrote:I think that when people get into these debate it is important to remember history is written by the winners. All history is subject to that rule, even the bible suffers from it. I personally think that its a cool idea and a cool army and within the game that is that. So what if people have misgivings about an icon surely humanity is past this.

Tragically, humanity is seldom past things like this. Evidence for that appears every time a Space Nazi PM thread is created.

So I've sat here for about 5 minutes, trying to figure out why the notion of Space Nazis bothers me more than Space Confederates. Honestly I can't figure out any sort of reason, but that doesn't seem really justified. Is it wrong that I can accept one but not the other? I'm seriously bothered by this.

Because Nazism is more recent and more fresh in your memory. Not that you were there, but you know what I mean. I imagine it would really bother you if someone created the Space Taliban.

Space Taliban is worse than Space Nazis, Space Nazis are worse than Space Confederates, and so on.

It's the same reason Space Crusaders don't bother anyone but the Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, and Teutonic Knights were some extremely brutal people. But that happened a milennium ago. So it doesn't bother us when GW creates the Black Templars, hangs all manner of religious iconography on their armor, and has them shout prayers to their god as they rush into close combat.

Hell, GW created a faction called the Inquisition, but that doesn't bother anyone! But you can open any history book and read about the atrocities committed by the Spanish Inquisition.

I could go on, but I don't think I need to.

Whoever pointed out that various 40k factions are based on lots of nasty societies (most notably the IG connection to Soviet methods) is right on. For that reason, I'm not terribly offended by it or anything. I do rather question the mindset of a Brit who thinks there's 'nothing more American' than confederacy.

What amazes me is the number of people online (who I presume are mostly southerners) telling everyone that it wasn't a civil war, wasn't about slavery, was the war of Northern Agression (???? I hope that bit was a joke) etc. Literally, to everyone in the western world outside the Southern USA, it was about slavery, the south was wrong, they lost, get over it.

I mean, I'm a UK citizen. Great Britain has done loads of awful things. Countries all over Asia and Africa know it, and although it's water under the bridge, it can fairly be said that we made arseholes of ourselves, on many occassions. What's wrong with all these people, can't admit your region of the USA did something that is categorically wrong by modern standards?

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:Whoever pointed out that various 40k factions are based on lots of nasty societies (most notably the IG connection to Soviet methods) is right on. For that reason, I'm not terribly offended by it or anything. I do rather question the mindset of a Brit who thinks there's 'nothing more American' than confederacy.

What amazes me is the number of people online (who I presume are mostly southerners) telling everyone that it wasn't a civil war, wasn't about slavery, was the war of Northern Agression (???? I hope that bit was a joke) etc. Literally, to everyone in the western world outside the Southern USA, it was about slavery, the south was wrong, they lost, get over it.

I mean, I'm a UK citizen. Great Britain has done loads of awful things. Countries all over Asia and Africa know it, and although it's water under the bridge, it can fairly be said that we made arseholes of ourselves, on many occassions. What's wrong with all these people, can't admit your region of the USA did something that is categorically wrong by modern standards?

The difference is most of the English stuff is more than a century in the past and half a world away. The segregation and racism that came about directly after/because of the civil war went all the way through the 60s. Most of those people are still alive and well today. All of the baby boomers (our largest segmet) were teenagers when it was going on. Anyone older than them actively participated in it to one degree or another. Its still very fresh over here. Getting less so with every generation, but its as fresh or more than the holocaust in some ways, even if not as mind bogglingly horrible.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:The difference is most of the English stuff is more than a century in the past and half a world away. The segregation and racism that came about directly after/because of the civil war went all the way through the 60s. Most of those people are still alive and well today. All of the baby boomers (our largest segmet) were teenagers when it was going on. Anyone older than them actively participated in it to one degree or another. Its still very fresh over here. Getting less so with every generation, but its as fresh or more than the holocaust, even if not as mind bogglingly horrible.

I would also like to thank the Nazi party for ruining that word, holocaust. It's a great word. It's a colorful term for a big fire. But it'll be forever associated with the actions of the Nazi party, and that's annoying. They also ruined the colors red and black, and the swastika.

Oh, and minor correction for the few people in this thread who referred to the symbol used by the Nazi party as a "swastika."

It's not a swastika. It's a Hakenkreuz. The swastika is the symbol it's based on.

SaintHazard wrote:Because Nazism is more recent and more fresh in your memory. Not that you were there, but you know what I mean. I imagine it would really bother you if someone created the Space Taliban.

Space Taliban is worse than Space Nazis, Space Nazis are worse than Space Confederates, and so on.

*snip*

This is pretty much what I was saying earlier. The more fresh an emotional wound is from its place in history, the more of a visceral reaction it gets. This is why nobody minds Space Romans and Space Huns and such, but is annoyed by Space Rebels. The important thing is just to recognize that our reaction to these symbols is purely emotional and carries no actual force or meaning to it, and then appreciate and judge the symbol for its intellectual value alone (whatever that may be). A person chooses to be offended, is what I'm saying, and the mature solution is to simply let the bad feelings go and view things objectively.

If I want to make an army of bearded and turbaned suicide bombers, that's as valid a source of military inspiration as Soviets, Knights Templar, or even cavemen, as long as I'm not intending to maliciously attack anyone by creating these works of art. Likewise, I should be able to make a Nazi SS-decorated army simply for the reason that the uniforms were so incredibly Boss (and kudos to whoever gets the joke).

alanedomain wrote:This is pretty much what I was saying earlier. The more fresh an emotional wound is from its place in history, the more of a visceral reaction it gets. This is why nobody minds Space Romans and Space Huns and such, but is annoyed by Space Rebels. The important thing is just to recognize that our reaction to these symbols is purely emotional and carries no actual force or meaning to it, and then appreciate and judge the symbol for its intellectual value alone (whatever that may be). A person chooses to be offended, is what I'm saying, and the mature solution is to simply let the bad feelings go and view things objectively.

If I want to make an army of bearded and turbaned suicide bombers, that's as valid a source of military inspiration as Soviets, Knights Templar, or even cavemen, as long as I'm not intending to maliciously attack anyone by creating these works of art. Likewise, I should be able to make a Nazi SS-decorated army simply for the reason that the uniforms were so incredibly Boss (and kudos to whoever gets the joke).

I have nothing to add here other than I did laugh a bit at the joke.

SaintHazard wrote:It's not a swastika. It's a Hakenkreuz. The swastika is the symbol it's based on.

it's the german word for swastika. if you're speaking in english, it's a swastika. they ARE the same thing. that's like saying sausage is not kielbasa but simply based on it because you changed the language used. they're words in different languages that mean the same thing. and, just to stop you from trying, i know the literal translation is hooked cross but that makes no difference as they both refer to the same object/symbol. TV in german is fersehapparat which literally translates to far seeing device; the words may not translate directly but refer to the same object. the swastika had plenty of nonhateful uses before the current century but almost no one will think of the original sanskrit meaning of the symbol when they see it.

warboss wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:It's not a swastika. It's a Hakenkreuz. The swastika is the symbol it's based on.

it's the german word for swastika. if you're speaking in english, it's a swastika. they ARE the same thing. that's like saying sausage is not kielbasa but simply based on it because you changed the language used. they're words in different languages that mean the same thing. and, just to stop you from trying, i know the literal translation is hooked cross but that makes no difference as they both refer to the same object/symbol. TV in german is fersehapparat which literally translates to far seeing device; the words may not translate directly but refer to the same object. the swastika had plenty of nonhateful uses before the current century but almost no one will think of the original sanskrit meaning of the symbol when they see it.

Actually, it means hook-cross, but that's beside the point.

It doesn't matter that the symbol itself is simply given a different name, the two are radically different.

The swastika is a religious icon that's been around for millennia, and has deep religious meaning.

The Hakenkreuz is the symbol of the Nazi party.

The two names are used to distinguish the two, and I would appreciate proper use, because the Nazis essentially defiled the swastika. As far as I'm concerned, what they were using was a different symbol altogether.

It may look similar, but it's not the same.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:Whoever pointed out that various 40k factions are based on lots of nasty societies (most notably the IG connection to Soviet methods) is right on. For that reason, I'm not terribly offended by it or anything. I do rather question the mindset of a Brit who thinks there's 'nothing more American' than confederacy.

What amazes me is the number of people online (who I presume are mostly southerners) telling everyone that it wasn't a civil war, wasn't about slavery, was the war of Northern Agression (???? I hope that bit was a joke) etc. Literally, to everyone in the western world outside the Southern USA, it was about slavery, the south was wrong, they lost, get over it.

I mean, I'm a UK citizen. Great Britain has done loads of awful things. Countries all over Asia and Africa know it, and although it's water under the bridge, it can fairly be said that we made arseholes of ourselves, on many occassions. What's wrong with all these people, can't admit your region of the USA did something that is categorically wrong by modern standards?

The difference is most of the English stuff is more than a century in the past and half a world away. The segregation and racism that came about directly after/because of the civil war went all the way through the 60s. Most of those people are still alive and well today. All of the baby boomers (our largest segmet) were teenagers when it was going on. Anyone older than them actively participated in it to one degree or another. Its still very fresh over here. Getting less so with every generation, but its as fresh or more than the holocaust in some ways, even if not as mind bogglingly horrible.

Yes, I get the difference (although some nasty bits of the Empire are far more recent than the American civil war, they're not as widely known in the West). But I'm not particularly concerned with the offensiveness of this army. If I saw this army across the table, I'd look very closely at the owner, ask a few questions, and if I was sure he wasn't a rascist or would-be slave owner, I'd play him. For the same reason (immediacy) I don't consider it personally as offensive/distasteful as a Nazi-themed army.

While I do think of the confederacy as 'those guys I'm glad lost', there is a difference between an army themed around their army, and one formed around their cause or beliefs. Whoever said earlier "use regimental and brigade flags, not the confederate cross" was spot on IMO. That would be one thing I'd look for if wondering whether a prospective opponent was a rascist or a history buff.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:What amazes me is the number of people online (who I presume are mostly southerners) telling everyone that it wasn't a civil war, wasn't about slavery, was the war of Northern Agression (???? I hope that bit was a joke) etc. Literally, to everyone in the western world outside the Southern USA, it was about slavery, the south was wrong, they lost, get over it.

What's wrong with all these people, can't admit your region of the USA did something that is categorically wrong by modern standards?

I seriously doubt that many people today don't think that slavery was bad, in retrospect. When people sympathize with the Confederacy, they're hinging on the "states rights" issue and a sense of self-determination. The fact that the proponents of increased self-determination were also the ones that had all the slaves is ironic, but makes the general argument no less valid. As someone else pointed out, though, the vast majority of Confederate fighters had nothing to do with slaves, but were simply protecting the rights of their homeland to make its own decisions to maintain the people's way of life. These were rights that the North was trying to destroy, hence why it's colloquially called "The War of Northern Aggression" (though it's also something of a joke, too). That's how I figure it, anyway.

SaintHazard wrote:

warboss wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:It's not a swastika. It's a Hakenkreuz. The swastika is the symbol it's based on.

it's the german word for swastika. if you're speaking in english, it's a swastika. they ARE the same thing. that's like saying sausage is not kielbasa but simply based on it because you changed the language used. they're words in different languages that mean the same thing. and, just to stop you from trying, i know the literal translation is hooked cross but that makes no difference as they both refer to the same object/symbol. TV in german is fersehapparat which literally translates to far seeing device; the words may not translate directly but refer to the same object. the swastika had plenty of nonhateful uses before the current century but almost no one will think of the original sanskrit meaning of the symbol when they see it.

Actually, it means hook-cross, but that's beside the point.

It doesn't matter that the symbol itself is simply given a different name, the two are radically different.

The swastika is a religious icon that's been around for millennia, and has deep religious meaning.

The Hakenkreuz is the symbol of the Nazi party.

The two names are used to distinguish the two, and I would appreciate proper use, because the Nazis essentially defiled the swastika. As far as I'm concerned, what they were using was a different symbol altogether.

It may look similar, but it's not the same.

From an etymological point of view, you're completely right. But you're never going to be able to change the commonly accepted meaning back. In a hundred or five hundred years time, when someone mentions a swastika, whoever recognises the term will be thinking of the nazi party's symbol. Time to just let it go, mate, can't fight change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alanedomain wrote:

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:What amazes me is the number of people online (who I presume are mostly southerners) telling everyone that it wasn't a civil war, wasn't about slavery, was the war of Northern Agression (???? I hope that bit was a joke) etc. Literally, to everyone in the western world outside the Southern USA, it was about slavery, the south was wrong, they lost, get over it.

What's wrong with all these people, can't admit your region of the USA did something that is categorically wrong by modern standards?

I seriously doubt that many people today don't think that slavery was bad, in retrospect. When people sympathize with the Confederacy, they're hinging on the "states rights" issue and a sense of self-determination. The fact that the proponents of increased self-determination were also the ones that had all the slaves is ironic, but makes the general argument no less valid. As someone else pointed out, though, the vast majority of Confederate fighters had nothing to do with slaves, but were simply protecting the rights of their homeland to make its own decisions to maintain the people's way of life. These were rights that the North was trying to destroy, hence why it's colloquially called "The War of Northern Aggression" (though it's also something of a joke, too). That's how I figure it, anyway.

Maybe so - it remains that the 'right' of the states in question was the right to own slaves. That pretty much makes the confederacy the 'bad guys' - or maybe 'deserved losers' is a better word - what I mean is, principles aside, it may be better for people who support states' rights to find a different instance of their exercise to identify with. That one has been pretty irrevocably tainted, and you just make yourself look a bit odd to the rest of the world by going on about the upsides of the confederate platform.

warboss wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:It's not a swastika. It's a Hakenkreuz. The swastika is the symbol it's based on.

it's the german word for swastika. if you're speaking in english, it's a swastika. they ARE the same thing. that's like saying sausage is not kielbasa but simply based on it because you changed the language used. they're words in different languages that mean the same thing. and, just to stop you from trying, i know the literal translation is hooked cross but that makes no difference as they both refer to the same object/symbol. TV in german is fersehapparat which literally translates to far seeing device; the words may not translate directly but refer to the same object. the swastika had plenty of nonhateful uses before the current century but almost no one will think of the original sanskrit meaning of the symbol when they see it.

If you go to a Buddhist temple, you may find a swastika, it's like the Nazi's only pointed the other way.

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


And on an OT-note: Loving the look of the army, especially the General Lee. I would personally play it as my CCS chimera

alanedomain wrote:When people sympathize with the Confederacy, they're hinging on the "states rights" issue and a sense of self-determination. The fact that the proponents of increased self-determination were also the ones that had all the slaves is ironic, but makes the general argument no less valid. As someone else pointed out, though, the vast majority of Confederate fighters had nothing to do with slaves, but were simply protecting the rights of their homeland to make its own decisions to maintain the people's way of life. These were rights that the North was trying to destroy, hence why it's colloquially called "The War of Northern Aggression" (though it's also something of a joke, too). That's how I figure it, anyway.

We just had a huge discussion on this!? The States wanted the right TO KEEP SLAVES. The wanted to use self determination because they determined SLAVERY was good for them. They wanted to preserve their agricultural economy based on SLAVE LABOR. They wanted to preserve their way of life where blacks weren't allowed to be educated, own property, and could be bought and sold as SLAVES. EVERYTHING about the CSA goes back to wanting slaves, needing slaves, and doing everything they could do to keep slavery. It is not a glorious part of southern history. The motives were not good, the methods were not good, what they were trying to preserve was not good. It is a dark and shameful part of American history and I am tired of southerners trying to to pretend it was something it wasn't. Find something else to be proud of.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

warboss wrote: the swastika had plenty of nonhateful uses before the current century but almost no one will think of the original sanskrit meaning of the symbol when they see it.

If you go to a Buddhist temple, you may find a swastika, it's like the Nazi's only pointed the other way.

yeah, i know. see my quote above.

To the OP. You may have to post anew thred discussing the minis outside of the Confederate Flag context. There are way to many conversion opportunities here for a Steampunk/Civil War era force (plus they are cheaper than GW minis!).

So, while all of you are pointing fingers as to who should feel ashamed because their views were "wrong," you should keep in mind the mindset of the era.

I'd think it was funny, actually. As long as you make it look good, have fun!

CrashUSAR wrote:So, while all of you are pointing fingers as to who should feel ashamed because their views were "wrong," you should keep in mind the mindset of the era.

Just because lots of people were racist at the time doesn't mean it was ok. And I'm not saying anyone in this forum shares their views. But if they are really as opposed to that thinking as they say they are why do so many southerners revel in the history of an institution that was created for the purpose of preserving system racism and slavery? I just don't understand it.

It's only considered racist today. Back then it wasn't a problem. Boils down to perspective, and calling it wrong and shamful now isn't going to achieve anything.

MDizzle wrote:Yuk a team of racists Booo to the stars and bars. Why would any of those flags be more appropriate? They all stand for the same bigotry and hatred. Maybe for you next army you will do a klan army wont that be fun.

They already exist (and I am aware this is from the first page).

SaintHazard wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Would I be welcome in all of England with an IRA themed IG army?

Not really a fair comparison... that's not so much comparable to a CSA themed IG army as it is to a Taliban-themed IG army in the US, or a Hamas-themed IG army in Israel.

The Taliban-themed army is also canon, they're called the Tallarn.

GW grabs inspiration from everywhere, I fail to see the problem with taking it from the CSA.

CrashUSAR wrote:It's only considered racist today. Back then it wasn't a problem. Boils down to perspective, and calling it wrong and shamful now isn't going to achieve anything.

Their perspective was wrong. We know now that it is wrong. Everyone here agrees it was wrong. So why are there CSA fanboys? And 2/3 of the country did think it was a problem. I think most of those people lived in the north.

Vene wrote:
The Taliban-themed army is also canon, they're called the Tallarn.

GW grabs inspiration from everywhere, I fail to see the problem with taking it from the CSA.

Careful, you're bordering on racism here.

The Tallarn are modeled after Arab armored cavalry, not the Taliban.

Unless you're one of those jackasses who believes that "everyone from over there" is a terrorist, which is a viewpoint I absolutely will not tolerate.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:We just had a huge discussion on this!? The States wanted the right TO KEEP SLAVES. The wanted to use self determination because they determined SLAVERY was good for them. They wanted to preserve their agricultural economy based on SLAVE LABOR. They wanted to preserve their way of life where blacks weren't allowed to be educated, own property, and could be bought and sold as SLAVES. EVERYTHING about the CSA goes back to wanting slaves, needing slaves, and doing everything they could do to keep slavery. It is not a glorious part of southern history. The motives were not good, the methods were not good, what they were trying to preserve was not good. It is a dark and shameful part of American history and I am tired of southerners trying to to pretend it was something it wasn't. Find something else to be proud of.

I'm not proud of what happened a century and a half ago, but then again, I had absolutely nothing to do with it. I do recognize that slave labor was simply the style at the time it was enacted, and it isn't fair to call an entire society evil for being reluctant to adapt to eventual societal changes when their current system is working just fine for them. In their context, that was simply the way life worked, and they resented being forced to change it, just like anyone would.

I don't know why you are incapable of separating the two concepts of slavery and self-determination in your mind. The specific argument between North and South was over slavery, yes, but the South seceded because it felt it wasn't being properly represented and wanted to make its own way; slavery was just the hot button issue of the day. They left the Union for the same reason the colonies left the British a century earlier: to protect their freedom. The Confederates weren't some evil empire marching to war thinking "golly, I can't wait to subjugate some more black people when I get back home!" To try to apply your own present-day morality on something that happened that long ago and therefore describe then-ordinary folks as "dark and shameful" is just silly.

OK, i am feeling like there is too much love for america going on here and too much hate for the OP. if you go back to the first post, he actualy says that "here, there is nothing more american than confederates." and he's right, in england we have a nice stereotype of americans with your strong views and cotton fields. i am not going to go into the destails of the civil war because i am not american and know almost nothing about it.

I am going to go into tolerance, however. i for one have no problem with this army, i also have no problem with the countless other armies like it. for example, in my local area i saw someone with a communist guard army. this guy had actualy gone to the trouble of painting the hammer and sickle on every shoulder pad. not one person had a problem with this, we laughed and said "hey, that's awesome. nice job!"

Also, my family originates from Austria (no, not the place with the kangaroos ) and if i saw a nazi themed army, i would also laugh and say good job. not only this, but i have considered doing a WWII german themed army of my own, i did not due to financial constraints. but i would not hold back on myself, i would have german flags, i would use a 40k style swastika, and my company commander would be hitler doing a little salute. i would not expect people to care, because it would be a piece of fun and not malicious in any way, as is how the OP designed his army.

So to conclude, keep the army going, i would love to see more pics . and all of you who are complaining and being precious , get out of your basements and see the game as it should be played, as a bit of fun where peoples creativity can flourish.

Thank you, and good night

SaintHazard wrote:The Tallarn are modeled after Arab armored cavalry, not the Taliban.

For all we know, they might actually have been inspired by the Taliban: they wear turbans, live in the desert, fight using tanks and live in underground tunnels. That sounds a lot like the Taliban that resisted the Soviets, were considered heroic freedom fighters, and were greatly assisted by the American military. I can't find when the Tallarn were first introduced, but it was some time in the 90s or so before the Taliban even became an enemy to the Western world in general.

Funny how times change, huh?

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

CrashUSAR wrote:It's only considered racist today. Back then it wasn't a problem. Boils down to perspective, and calling it wrong and shamful now isn't going to achieve anything.

Their perspective was wrong. We know now that it is wrong. Everyone here agrees it was wrong. So why are there CSA fanboys? And 2/3 of the country did think it was a problem. I think most of those people lived in the north.

Again, it's a matter of perspective. Nowadays, people generally agree that it was wrong. That is today, not 170 years ago.

And wasn't this thread about a Confederate THEMED army and not a forum for historical debate?

alanedomain wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:The Tallarn are modeled after Arab armored cavalry, not the Taliban.

For all we know, they might actually have been inspired by the Taliban: they wear turbans, live in the desert, fight using tanks and live in underground tunnels. That sounds a lot like the Taliban that resisted the Soviets, were considered heroic freedom fighters, and were greatly assisted by the American military. I can't find when the Tallarn were first introduced, but it was some time in the 90s or so before the Taliban even became an enemy to the Western world in general.

Funny how times change, huh?

If you want to be technical, that was the Mujahideen, of which the taliban was a part of.

alanedomain wrote:
isn't fair to call an entire society evil for being reluctant to adapt to eventual societal changes when their current system is working just fine for them.

I'm sorry but this statement is crazy. It was working just fine for the white land owners because that had ENSLAVED people! Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? I'm sure there were a few a people who probably weren't so fond of slavery but fought for the CSA for other reasons. But even those people were in the wrong. They were at least indifferent towards slavery which is wrong, and if they weren’t indifferent they shouldn’t have fought for a nation whose purpose was to protect slavery.

alanedomain wrote: I don't know why you are incapable of separating the two concepts of slavery and self-determination in your mind.

You can't use your self determination to enslave people! The northern states were right to try and stop them.

alanedomain wrote:The Confederates weren't some evil empire marching to war thinking "golly, I can't wait to subjugate some more black people when I get back home!" To try to apply your own present-day morality on something that happened that long ago and therefore describe then-ordinary folks as "dark and shameful" is just silly.

They actually were pretty close to that. And my present day morality is the same morality of everyone in the country except the slave owners. Gee, I wonder why the slave owners didn't see a problem with slavery?

@ CrashUSAR - yes mate, it was wrong. No-one is saying that every person who supported the South was some sort of evil monster. Many men on the Confederate side were presumably better human beings overall than many men on the Union side. Yes, it was possible at that time to support slavery, and even be a slave-owner, without being completely filled with hatred and bitterness - but you did have to accept, implicitly, that some other people were eligible to be your property, and ineligible to have any rights, because of hte colour of their skin. This is what our society today considers pretty bloody wrong!

I'm not rushing to defile the graves of Confederate soldiers, I realise that they were human beings like you or me, justified in their own minds. But they were wrong. Thank god they lost. I don't see why so many people on this site have a problem with that thought.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

alanedomain wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:The Tallarn are modeled after Arab armored cavalry, not the Taliban.

For all we know, they might actually have been inspired by the Taliban: they wear turbans, live in the desert, fight using tanks and live in underground tunnels. That sounds a lot like the Taliban that resisted the Soviets, were considered heroic freedom fighters, and were greatly assisted by the American military. I can't find when the Tallarn were first introduced, but it was some time in the 90s or so before the Taliban even became an enemy to the Western world in general.

Funny how times change, huh?

If you want to be technical, that was the Mujahideen, of which the taliban was a part of.

In which case, my original point stands.

MDizzle wrote:For all of those that want to poo poo and say the stars and bars are okay to fly and it's no big deal because I don't get some BS semantic point you brought up. Make no mistake that flag in today's context mean racism bottom line and if you want to play an army like that go ahead but I also have a right to say I think it sucks and I hope all of your models melt in a tragic accident. Good Day.

Perhaps the racist flag in the middle of this pic should be banned along with all the other flags that racists use.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:@ CrashUSAR - yes mate, it was wrong. No-one is saying that every person who supported the South was some sort of evil monster. Many men on the Confederate side were presumably better human beings overall than many men on the Union side. Yes, it was possible at that time to support slavery, and even be a slave-owner, without being completely filled with hatred and bitterness - but you did have to accept, implicitly, that some other people were eligible to be your property, and ineligible to have any rights, because of hte colour of their skin. This is what our society today considers pretty bloody wrong!

I'm not rushing to defile the graves of Confederate soldiers, I realise that they were human beings like you or me, justified in their own minds. But they were wrong. Thank god they lost. I don't see why so many people on this site have a problem with that thought.

They were not wrong, the vast majority were poor farmers and labourers, they were defending what they considered their freedoms, the slavery issue would have meant nothing to them as they didn't own any. The majority of people across the USA cared nothing for the slaves freedom either or they would have been freed long before war broke out. It would also be another 100 years before blacks got equal rights in the USA so let's not pretend that the war was about anything other than maintaining financial control over territory. The North abolishing slavery was no different to the British freeing black slaves during the Revolutionary War, both acts were designed to destabilise the enemy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:
It's not a swastika. It's a Hakenkreuz. The swastika is the symbol it's based on.

It's not based on the swastika as they have common origins, the symbol was in use in Europe for thousands of years before anyone had ever heard of Sanskrit or even India. The first evidence of it appears on mammoth bones found in the Ukraine and date to shortly after the end of the last Ice Age. It was widely used by the Celts, Greeks and Romans. It was such a commonplace symbol before being associated with the nazis that there are still old synagogues with decorative tiles displaying swastikas.

Frazzled wrote:This army needs Parrots and Napoleons for its heavy weapons. Conversion opportunities galore.

Not keen on the Southern Cross there though. You shouldn't have that on there or have it modified. You might get your ass beat and/or shot in certain locales for that, with justification.

The General Lee needs Daisy Duke hanging onto the back of course...

There's nothing racist about it man. It's a state's rights issue. Today we see states rights issues contested by the hundred, none of which pertain to racism and/or slavery.

Great army nonetheless and you can't have the 'General Lee' without the Condfederate Flag, it would be like painting it without the '01' or in another colour. Only thing is, is that the army looks like it might be from Texas and the Lee is probably from Georgia.

Awesome. Nice job with the cowboy hats on the roughriders, I hope you'll post a tutorial... I've been thinking about doing a cowboy themed guard force for a while myself. One of the first minis I ever painted was a MkIII Ogre done up as the General Lee:

How far can it jump?

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Frazzled wrote:This army needs Parrots and Napoleons for its heavy weapons. Conversion opportunities galore.

Not keen on the Southern Cross there though. You shouldn't have that on there or have it modified. You might get your ass beat and/or shot in certain locales for that, with justification.

The General Lee needs Daisy Duke hanging onto the back of course...

There's nothing racist about it man. It's a state's rights issue. Today we see states rights issues contested by the hundred, none of which pertain to racism and/or slavery.

The American Civil War was about more than slavery, but to ignore that slavery was a key issue is to revise history.

cadbren wrote:only thing is, is that the army looks like it might be from Texas and the Lee is probably from Georgia.

he's from virginia. you're off by 650 miles or so.

Klawz wrote:
Anyway, I personally wouldn't use the confederate flag, as it both means things to certain people (one of my ansestors was shot in the back on the yankee side) and some right-wing loonies have misinterpreteted it as the Tea Party Flag (TM).

Fixed it for you.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Frazzled wrote:This army needs Parrots and Napoleons for its heavy weapons. Conversion opportunities galore.

Not keen on the Southern Cross there though. You shouldn't have that on there or have it modified. You might get your ass beat and/or shot in certain locales for that, with justification.

The General Lee needs Daisy Duke hanging onto the back of course...

There's nothing racist about it man. It's a state's rights issue. Today we see states rights issues contested by the hundred, none of which pertain to racism and/or slavery.

It's a state's rights issue concerning the legality of slavery which led to thousands of deaths and the suffering of untold millions.

I honestly don't get it, I'm in one of the northern most states and I still see white trash flying the stars and bars. You can be all for state's rights, I really don't care. Just do it in a respectable way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Che-Vito wrote:

Klawz wrote:
Anyway, I personally wouldn't use the confederate flag, as it both means things to certain people (one of my ansestors was shot in the back on the yankee side) and some right-wing loonies have misinterpreteted it as the Tea Party Flag (TM).

Fixed it for you.

Meh, political rallies are for chumps. This is how we handle them where I come from (not really though).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhozx819izU&feature=related < Blues Brothers FTW

A lot of stuff here. As one poster noted, the civil war (or as it is more properly called, the War of the Rebellion) was about a complex set of issues, but to ignore the role of slavery as the overriding issue is missing the forest for the trees.

In many ways, the secession was a reaction in the south at losing economic and political domination of the country for the first time in history. Nearly every president before Lincoln was southern, and the south had the advantage in population and production until the industrialization of the 1840's and 50's. Less than a noble quest for "state's rights", the civil war was simply the south taking their toys and going home when things stopped going their way.

Anyway, there were comments made about judging slavery by the standards of the time. Even by 1860, though in the West had moved pretty dramatically away from legalized slavery. Every other industrialized nation had abolished slavery by then, including fully half of the United States. Even in the south, few thinkers were defending slavery on positive moral grounds, rather they simply argued it's central role in the economy and the enormous threat to stability emancipation threatened. Quotes such as:

"We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other" -Thomas Jefferson

and

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence." -Robert E. Lee

show that even those that defend and prosper from slave labor knew it was wrong.

Finally, to comment on the Battle Flag, as a symbol, I say simply that symbols are read by the beholder. I think that you can come up with really neat historically based flags that use regimental, brigade, and state flags, and avoid the battle flag completely. It's a symbol of a region, to be sure, but it's also linked strongly with a vigorous defense first of chattel slavery and then jim crow laws. Good or ill, when people see that flag, they see a history of conflict and hatred. It's unfair, as southern soldiers were no more or less evil than northern soldiers, and the white southerners of the 1960's weren't more racist than white northerners of the 1960's. but you should be aware that there is a link, and given the pride many modern southerners take in the flag, voluntary use of it is a way of showing solidarity with them. If you're comfortable with that, and I'm not judging it, than knock yourself out.

I love the rough riders. Great work!

The way I see it, whether or not the OP intended the army to be "racist and bigoted" or not, the American Civil War is still an integral part of the history of the country. To say that someone is wrong for making an army based around this theme is a hairs breadth away from claiming it didn't even happen at all.

There are plenty of references to major forces in world history in Warhammer 40k, for example, the Death Korps Of Kreig. Are you telling me a Jewish gamer should get offended every time a DKOK army is put down opposing them? I think not.

Same is true for Tallern. How many of you Americans get offended every time you see a Tallern mini?

Back on topic, this is a really cool, unique army. I'd be happy to play against this regardless of the connotations of the army's theme.

For all those that want to point to history and make up a bunch of crap about how it wasn't about slavery and it was this and it was that go ahead but the stars and bar in Today's context is a symbol of racism bottom line.

The Death Korps aren't exactly sporting swastikas. I did see a WW2 German themed Imperial Guard army with the straight-armed Iron Cross that raised a big commotion.

So people honestly think that a war between two different political/geographical entities was a civil war?

What?

civil war 
–noun
a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

The CSA seceeded from the Union, as was their legal and political right, and established a seperate soverign nation.

Therefore, it violates the definition of "civil war," as it is no longer between two "political factions," within the same country.

Two seperate governments, geographical regions, countries, societies with vast differences, ect. however you spin it =/= civil war.

How the heck is that apparently hard to understand?

And for the goof who said history is written by the victors, and therefore true.... wtf?

Now that aside....

Much of the military and political establishment of the southern states realized that slavery was an institution that could not continue to propogate itself.

Many of the military and political leaders knew they had to eventually work slavery out of the economic and social framework, albeit slowly; since to do it in a quick and violent fashion would do more to destabalize the region and cause backlash that could have lasting ramifications, as it did.

We're all apparently ignoring the fact that the abolition of slavery also had ulterior motives. Northerners were just as racist as southerners.

When they did forced bussing, northern parents would throw bricks at school busses carrying black children. My father remembers it and told me about it.

Using everyone's amazing logic on here, we should not allow the American flag to be flown either for that and all the other crap perpetrated under its watch.

/thread

WaaaaghLord wrote:1) To say that someone is wrong for making an army based around this theme is a hairs breadth away from claiming it didn't even happen at all.

2) There are plenty of references to major forces in world history in Warhammer 40k, for example, the Death Korps Of Kreig. Are you telling me a Jewish gamer should get offended every time a DKOK army is put down opposing them? I think not.

1) not. even. close. it's not even the same solar system let alone ballpark. saying that it may lead to trouble by memorializing an army for a scifi universe that (among other things) stood for the protection of the institution of slavery is NOT even remotely close to saying the war didn't happen. hyperbole much?

2) plenty of german jews served in the kaiser's armed forces in WWI which is what the DKOK is based on. you're off by about 25 years and one world war.

Well, you made a couple of errors in your post.

First, the definition of civil war you quoted used the word country, not sovereign state. Since virtually all civil wars are fought over who is the sovereign of a territory, simply because one side declared independence doesn't change the nature of the war.

I think you're confusing insurrection, or insurgency with civil war. Virtually all wars called civil wars have featured more than one government. They were still fought over control over the territory of a single state.

Since, more than anything, the war was fought over whether or not a state can succeed, and the war pretty much determined that they could not, it's hard to call it a political and legal right. SCOTUS held that secession was illegal as well, and the Articles of Confederation explicitly forbade secession.

If you prefer to call it a rebellion, I'd be fine with it. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody in International law that wouldn't allow a State to reclaim territory it had once held after a secession.

I feel bad for the poor guy who started the thread. And I contributed to it as well, damn sorry man.

That aside, could you post more pictures? The idea is unique and your paint job isn't half bad either.

It's a shame that ideas like that wouldn't occur at a similar frequency here in America because people have their heads shoved up themselves, and are incapable of ignoring and letting things go.

Kudos to you for not being one of those, coming up with an idea, and running with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
First, the definition of civil war you quoted used the word country, not sovereign state. Since virtually all civil wars are fought over who is the sovereign of a territory, simply because one side declared independence doesn't change the nature of the war.

I think you're confusing insurrection, or insurgency with civil war. Virtually all wars called civil wars have featured more than one government. They were still fought over control over the territory of a single state.

Hence the reason why I made the mention of cultural and economic differences. The differences between the two reason (ignoring right and wrong) were vast enough to throw the definition of "Civil War," out the window.

Polonius wrote:

Since, more than anything, the war was fought over whether or not a state can succeed, and the war pretty much determined that they could not, it's hard to call it a political and legal right. SCOTUS held that secession was illegal as well, and the Articles of Confederation explicitly forbade secession.

It does not mention anywhere in the Constitution that the Union of the States must be permanent. New York, Virginia, and other states reserved the right to regain the governmental powers granted to the United States before they would even ratify it.

"It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." - Henry Cabot Lodge

"The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State." - A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle

If it was an illegal act, then why was no Confederate tried for treason?

Polonius wrote:
If you prefer to call it a rebellion, I'd be fine with it. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody in International law that wouldn't allow a State to reclaim territory it had once held after a secession.

That's fine with me.

But heres some copypasta for you.

Actually America has never had a "civil war." A civil war is defined as a struggle between two or more factions for control of a central government. Since the Southern states seceded legally under the constitution as it existed at that time (a point upheld later by Lincoln's own Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who said "Secession was legal." and the reason None of the Confederate leaders were ever tried for treason) there were two separate and functioning governments on the North American Continent. The United States of America and the Confederate States of America. You will note that all Military correspondence during the war in the "War of the Rebellion" records refer to the Confederate States as a separate entity. The Southern states never voiced any desire to rule in "Washington" and take over the entire country, their wish was merely to be able to leave and be left alone. So the correct term (and others are just fanciful) would be, as it was for the Colonists in 1776, the "War for Southern Independence."

That actually fits in with your rebellion suggestion so it seems we have... reached consensus.

People on the internet are such outspoken moralists. In real life, they don't say anything.

Here's what I don't get:

Actual Swastika clad SS Panzer army for Flames of War: ok.

SS themed army for 40K: EVIL!

Actual Confederate army for [Insert Civil War Game Title Here]: ok

Confederate themed army for 40K: EVIL!

I DO NOT LIKE DUMBNESS. MAKE IT STOP BEING.

warboss wrote:

cadbren wrote:only thing is, is that the army looks like it might be from Texas and the Lee is probably from Georgia.

he's from virginia. you're off by 650 miles or so.

Thanks, but I was referring to the car not the man. The 'Dukes of Hazzard' tv series is considered to be set in Georgia.

cadbren wrote:

warboss wrote:

cadbren wrote:only thing is, is that the army looks like it might be from Texas and the Lee is probably from Georgia.

he's from virginia. you're off by 650 miles or so.

Thanks, but I was referring to the car not the man. The 'Dukes of Hazzard' tv series is considered to be set in Georgia.

my mistake. i thought you were talking about the general. yeah, the show is supposed to be set in georgia.

Phryxis wrote:People on the internet are such outspoken moralists. In real life, they don't say anything.

Here's what I don't get:

Actual Swastika clad SS Panzer army for Flames of War: ok.

SS themed army for 40K: EVIL!

Actual Confederate army for [Insert Civil War Game Title Here]: ok

Confederate themed army for 40K: EVIL!

I DO NOT LIKE DUMBNESS. MAKE IT STOP BEING.

I had an online argument once about violent toys. These people thought the idea of toys armed with modern guns was too violent, but the same toys armed with swords and axes was fine - simply because they thought of swords etc as belonging to the romantic past without thinking about the reality. Lots of people don't think through their prejudices and some hate being challenged on them. Note the above people who have threatened physical violence and destruction of property because they view the other side as being prejudiced and/or ignorant!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Re the flag thing, the confederate flag is part of the Georgia State Flag, something to bear in mind.

Nice looking army. I'd say the only thing I don't like much is that the Confederate flag is so small. Needs to take up the whole front see? Nice themed army you've got there.

I have nothing against using a 40k army made up as confederates - I would look twice at the owner, because it's a bit unusual to shoehorn that historical look into 40k, but if I think he's not a rascist, then the army doesn't bother me.

What bothers me is all the Americans from the South, telling everyone who'll listen that it was about states rights and defending a way of life. Polonius definitely had the best and calmest summing-up so far: it was about those things, and others, but slavery was the central issue.

All the faffery about civil war or rebellion ar war between two seperate nations is pretty irrelevant. I'm done with this discussion, good luck to all the posters (who I note are all from somewhere in the southern USA) who want to regard the conflict as a noble cause fought for right and freedom.

Interesting thread, this army would get a lot of negative attention if you rolled it out in the US, over here people are more likely to go:

'Ooh, Dukes of Hazzard, cool, where does Boss Hog sit?'

Recreating any historical army is potentially contentious as an army by definition was used to kill someone elses ancestors. The more important the war the more coverage it gets in schools (I'm guessing here that the American Civil War is taught to death in their schools) and therefore a greater proportion of people will have enough knowledge to posit an opinion.

Also Americans are far more patriotic than us Brits, if someone burnt a Union Jack (interestingly, many people here associate our flag and the George Cross with right wing/racist groups) we'd probably be more concerned over the washing we'd just hung out to dry rather than try to lock him up. So, an army themed to one side of their 'Civil War' (or whatever you care to call it) is always going to create contention. It's also a lot more recent than any other similar conflict, WW2 is a bit of a different case as we've seen so much footage, so many films that we're almost de-sensitized.

Gotta say, OP, love the army idea. That's really one of the great things about the Guard, with a bit of ingenuity if there's an historical army you think looks kinda cool you can do it. I'd really like to see some more pics, especially of the rank and file.

Don't mind the flame police action, it's a nifty idea you had.

Yup, and thanks to Mordian for an exciting thread too.

Could you post some close ups of your troops to see how you've done them. I can see that many are from the Mordian range (funny that) but the details are hard to see.

Thank you, let's get back to the Painting and Modelling, eh?

Not that I don't love all the WARRGHRBL!!!!!!!

Because that's how we welcome newbies with interesting looking army ideas. With page after page after page of idiocy. Emperor be praised, I love the Internet.

Mods, if you cut out every post that's not actually about the damned army (including this one), you get a cookie. In fact, if this thing gets any stupider, I would be willing to grab a box of Chips Ahoy! and hit the post office.



"Sir, mind if I ask why you're express posting cookies to people you've never met."

"Stupid Internet crap. Now gimme them stamps."

Yes, but this is four pages of civil and polite WARRGHRBL, the best kind.

My biggest issue, as I said before, is nothing regarding the army itself, rather OP's misconception of Americans... that honestly bothers me a little. Saying all Americans are Confederates is more than a little ignorant, if you ask me... that'd be like me saying that all Brits have ridiculous facial hair, bad teeth, and have tea with the Queen while say, "Jolly good, chap, let's go colonise some brown people, mate, wot wot!"

See how ridiculous that sounds? Even though I spelled "colonise" with an S for accuracy?

Similar.

I don't know how it is over there, but most Americans realize that English folk are just regular people like us.

I don't have an issue with the confederate flag if done in a civil war game but it just really doesn't fit in with a 40K army. It just feels kind of wonky but the rest of the army looks good.

If you don't have an issue with the stars and bars I would suggest that you do a little more research in to it's current context. Confederate flag, a long-time symbol of racial hatred.

Those who object because the rebel flag is "part of their heritage?" So is Willie Horton. The hoop skirts and plantations are completely dependent on the slave trade and Jim Crow, nostalgia for racial inequity. Shame.

MDizzle wrote:If you don't have an issue with the stars and bars I would suggest that you do a little more research in to it's current context. Confederate flag, a long-time symbol of racial hatred.

Those who object because the rebel flag is "part of their heritage?" So is Willie Horton. The hoop skirts and plantations are completely dependent on the slave trade and Jim Crow, nostalgia for racial inequity. Shame.

Would you pipe down? We get it. You don't like the Confederate Flag. You've made your point. Say something constructive or quit trolling.

Sacred Chao wrote:
Hence the reason why I made the mention of cultural and economic differences. The differences between the two reason (ignoring right and wrong) were vast enough to throw the definition of "Civil War," out the window.

Most definitions of civil war include two groups from one nation state fighting over the independence of another. Since civil war, by again most defintions requires a war, there has to be some form of functioning government and formal military.

It does not mention anywhere in the Constitution that the Union of the States must be permanent. New York, Virginia, and other states reserved the right to regain the governmental powers granted to the United States before they would even ratify it.

"It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." - Henry Cabot Lodge

"The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State." - A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle

If it was an illegal act, then why was no Confederate tried for treason?

Well, it doesn't mention a lot of things in the Constitution, yet the courts have found plenty of things unconstitutional. In Texas v. White, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v_White, the court held that secession was unconstitutional. You might not like that decision, but SCOTUS isn't final because they're right, they're right because they're final. Obviously the war made the matter pretty moot for most factors.

But heres some copypasta for you.

Actually America has never had a "civil war." A civil war is defined as a struggle between two or more factions for control of a central government. Since the Southern states seceded legally under the constitution as it existed at that time (a point upheld later by Lincoln's own Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who said "Secession was legal." and the reason None of the Confederate leaders were ever tried for treason) there were two separate and functioning governments on the North American Continent. The United States of America and the Confederate States of America. You will note that all Military correspondence during the war in the "War of the Rebellion" records refer to the Confederate States as a separate entity. The Southern states never voiced any desire to rule in "Washington" and take over the entire country, their wish was merely to be able to leave and be left alone. So the correct term (and others are just fanciful) would be, as it was for the Colonists in 1776, the "War for Southern Independence."

That actually fits in with your rebellion suggestion so it seems we have... reached consensus.

it's still a civil war under every definition I've read. There are two basic types: the English style, fight for control of everything civil war, and the regional, war of independence style. They're still civil wars, in that they take place in a single nation-state (or the remains of a single nation state), and are fought primarily over sovereignty. In many ways the AWI was also a civil war, although the colonies weren't formally a part of the UK, while the south was a formal part of the US.

Polonius all of you semantics about the war or lack there of make no difference the simple fact is that the flag is a symbol of racism bottom line.

MDizzle wrote:Polonius all of you semantics about the war or lack there of make no difference the simple fact is that the flag is a symbol of racism bottom line.

I feel it appropriate to point out that it's only a symbol of racism because the North used slavery in order to give themselves the moral high ground. Prior to all the anti slavery bills... It wasn't even relevant to the conflict, and never was from the south's point of view.


On a more relevant note... I like the army.. keep it up!

Vene wrote:

MDizzle wrote:Yuk a team of racists Booo to the stars and bars. Why would any of those flags be more appropriate? They all stand for the same bigotry and hatred. Maybe for you next army you will do a klan army wont that be fun.

They already exist (and I am aware this is from the first page).

SaintHazard wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Would I be welcome in all of England with an IRA themed IG army?

Not really a fair comparison... that's not so much comparable to a CSA themed IG army as it is to a Taliban-themed IG army in the US, or a Hamas-themed IG army in Israel.

The Taliban-themed army is also canon, they're called the Tallarn.

GW grabs inspiration from everywhere, I fail to see the problem with taking it from the CSA.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that your just spouting this stuff to be as extreme as possible for purposes of the argument.


To use your poor example: the Tallarns are based upon arabic/middle eastern aesthetics. This is not the same thing as an "Al-Qaeda" force.

If I paint tallarns and theme my army with desert bases and so forth that is not the same as painting present day militant slogans in arabic on the tanks, and having a display tray with two burning towers on it. I hope you can comprehend the difference.

So yes having civil war inspired IG is a cool idea, but it would still be cool without needing to push the envelope by including symbols that in a present day context are STILL used by people as a symbol of division, racism and hatred.

IF you are making an actual confederate army or WWII German army for a historical wargame then such usage has a context and is meant to contribute to visual accuracy from a modeling perspective.

When you randomly decide t put swastikas and other symbols still in use today as symbols of hatred onto models that have no context based need for them, then you are gonna raise eyebrows. Some people have a personal or family history with these symbols. These aren't defunct 1000+ year old symbols with no present day implication.

I find that people who do this are often starved for attention or like the reaction it gets from people, that is until the reaction is of the more aggressive/violent nature...

Draggoon wrote:

MDizzle wrote:Polonius all of you semantics about the war or lack there of make no difference the simple fact is that the flag is a symbol of racism bottom line.

I feel it appropriate to point out that it's only a symbol of racism because the North used slavery in order to give themselves the moral high ground. Prior to all the anti slavery bills... It wasn't even relevant to the conflict, and never was from the south's point of view.


On a more relevant note... I like the army.. keep it up!

Uhm, yeah what he said.

It really only became an issue in January 1863. When Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation. And only after the Union had secured a solid victory @ antitam (sp?). He waited mostly because most Northerners could not give a damn about slavery, and would react very poorly to fighting a war for slaves. And with a good win under his belts, he felt that it was safe to free the slaves. Oh, and the Proclamation in reality didn't do anything but give the North the moral high ground because it freed slaves in rebelling states. States that are rebelling. States that didn't care about Lincoln...

Oh and if I remember correctly, European support for the CSA went away quick after the Proclamation was issued. While the nobility ruling Europe would like nothing more then the cheap cotton that came out of the South, they would like to not be killed in a riot instigated by furious citizens.

MDizzle wrote:Polonius all of you semantics about the war or lack there of make no difference the simple fact is that the flag is a symbol of racism bottom line.

The world is more complex than that. First off, symbols don't have inherent meaning. A red octagon doesn't mean "stop" because that's the way the universe works, we simply all accept that meaning and operate under it. So you need to be careful in assigning universal meaning to a flag. As many posters here have said, to a white southerner the flag is a symbol of a lost cause. To a white northerner, it's a symbol of rebellion. To a black american it's a symbol of racism. To a Briton it's a symbol of Dukes of Hazzard.

That the confederate flag has been strongly linked with racism is undeniable. But that's not what it means every time. When a civil war reenactor marches under it, is that racist?

The confederate army is in many ways the last romantic military. they had semi-mystical leaders like jackson and lee, plenty of down home good old boys in the ranks, and they fought off a numerically superior foe for four years. There's a lot to admire and respect there. It's a shame that the south picked it's right to chattel slavery and Jim Crow as the two big stand offs with national authority, because it leads to comments like yours: that they are, predominately, racists.

In short, context matters. Yeah, a lot of people in general are racists, and maybe in some ways that goes up in the deep south. that doesn't mean we should shelve a flag because of that. I think there needs to be some thought into how it's received, but if somebody wants to use it, I'm not going to immediately assume they're a bigot.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

Draggoon wrote:

MDizzle wrote:Polonius all of you semantics about the war or lack there of make no difference the simple fact is that the flag is a symbol of racism bottom line.

I feel it appropriate to point out that it's only a symbol of racism because the North used slavery in order to give themselves the moral high ground. Prior to all the anti slavery bills... It wasn't even relevant to the conflict, and never was from the south's point of view.


On a more relevant note... I like the army.. keep it up!

Uhm, yeah what he said.

It really only became an issue in January 1863. When Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation. And only after the Union had secured a solid victory @ antitam (sp?). He waited mostly because most Northerners could not give a damn about slavery, and would react very poorly to fighting a war for slaves.

We are all aware of the history of the civil war, etc., etc.

That is all irrelevant, because the more important point is that despite what it might have been intended to stand for in the past, it has been co-opted and used with a very specific implied meaning in present day America in the same way that the swastika's origins as a similar Native American and asian symbol is lost on 99.9% of people who recognize it for it's use in the present day by racist hate groups...

We don't live in 1863.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

That the confederate flag has been strongly linked with racism is undeniable. But that's not what it means every time. When a civil war reenactor marches under it, is that racist?

That is the context I spoke of.

In that case including it furthers historical realism of what is being re-inacted and is a detail that belongs in a visual display of past events.

It is being displayed in an appropriate context.


Displaying it in front of your house every day or on the back of your pickup truck has a whole other implied context and meaning.

Putting it on 40K models seems purely an attempt at sensationalism...

SaintHazard wrote:Yes, but this is four pages of civil and polite WARRGHRBL, the best kind.

My biggest issue, as I said before, is nothing regarding the army itself, rather OP's misconception of Americans... that honestly bothers me a little. Saying all Americans are Confederates is more than a little ignorant, if you ask me... that'd be like me saying that all Brits have ridiculous facial hair, bad teeth, and have tea with the Queen while say, "Jolly good, chap, let's go colonise some brown people, mate, wot wot!"

See how ridiculous that sounds? Even though I spelled "colonise" with an S for accuracy?

Similar.

I don't know how it is over there, but most Americans realize that English folk are just regular people like us.

Here here.

To be fair to the guy there's almost nothing taught about American history in our schools, apart from 'Roosevelt was a bit of an isolationist; then he wasn't! Now back to the Nazis.' That also means that the vast majority of people here wouldn't even dream of calling Americans Confederates because it's just not something we associate you with. Yanks might be used, but not in reference to Yankies in any partisan kind of way.

Nice generalisation by the way apart from it would be 'what' instead of 'wot'. I'll gloss over the fact that I've just had a cuppa, need a shave and have a dentists appointment on Tuesday (this is all actually true).

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

Draggoon wrote:

MDizzle wrote:Polonius all of you semantics about the war or lack there of make no difference the simple fact is that the flag is a symbol of racism bottom line.

I feel it appropriate to point out that it's only a symbol of racism because the North used slavery in order to give themselves the moral high ground. Prior to all the anti slavery bills... It wasn't even relevant to the conflict, and never was from the south's point of view.


On a more relevant note... I like the army.. keep it up!

Uhm, yeah what he said.

It really only became an issue in January 1863. When Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation. And only after the Union had secured a solid victory @ antitam (sp?). He waited mostly because most Northerners could not give a damn about slavery, and would react very poorly to fighting a war for slaves. And with a good win under his belts, he felt that it was safe to free the slaves. Oh, and the Proclamation in reality didn't do anything but give the North the moral high ground because it freed slaves in rebelling states. States that are rebelling. States that didn't care about Lincoln...

Oh and if I remember correctly, European support for the CSA went away quick after the Proclamation was issued. While the nobility ruling Europe would like nothing more then the cheap cotton that came out of the South, they would like to not be killed in a riot instigated by furious citizens.

this is dangerously close to Lost Cause propaganda. Tensions between north and south had existed over slavery at least as far back as the compromise of 1850, and had escalated with the Fugitive slave act, the Dred Scott decision, and the conflict in Bleeding Kansas. Slavery was a huge, overriding issue in national politics before the war.

If you're arguing for why the war was fought by the north, than the elimination of slavery didn't kick into until later. Originally it was about defending the union (let's not forget that the first aggression was by the south), but that's why the north was fighting, not why the south was fighting. To give an idea of the type of rhetoric that flowed in the early CSA, here are parts of the "Cornerstone speech" by the VP of the CSA:

" The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst 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.

(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone 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."

It's not hard to see why he was fighting.

As for European support, I've actually done some research on the topic, and while only one nation formally supported the North (the Russians, of all people), no power came close to open support for the south. Yes, cotton was a big crop and part of the English economy, but there were bumper crops in Egypt and India that met most demand. More importantly, England imported huge amounts of grain from the North. going to war with the North meant food prices go up, really putting the hammer on a populace not wild about supporting slavery. There also were legitimate concerns about losing Canada, and there are even reports that the ambassador to London implied that the US has a huge population of Irish that wouldn't mind an attempt to liberate their home land. In the end, it wasn't worth it for the UK to support the CSA.

The other thing I've noticed in this thread is a few people tying European/British support for the Confederates into the debate. I'm not sure you could be less relevant to be honest; and if that's the route you want to take maybe investigate IRA funding over the last 30 years and see what that throws up. Idiots and extremists live everywhere.

cadbren wrote:
Re the flag thing, the confederate flag is part of the Georgia State Flag, something to bear in mind.

you're a few years out of date. the flag you're thinking of was adopted in the 1950's as an F U to the federal government in response to attempts at educational desegregation. it wasn't a benign symbol of southern pride and history. if it had been the official flag since before the civil war (or even during it), it'd be a different story but that's not the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Georgia_(U.S._state)

either way, nice army mordian. with that, i'll leave all you southern pride advocates and your british allies (funny and ironic, lol) to the thread.

Bullfrog wrote:The other thing I've noticed in this thread is a few people tying European/British support for the Confederates into the debate. I'm not sure you could be less relevant to be honest; and if that's the route you want to take maybe investigate IRA funding over the last 30 years and see what that throws up. Idiots and extremists live everywhere.

Support for the CSA by Britain was mostly due to economic and frankly social ties. The planters functioned as an aristocracy similar to that found in Europe, unlike the more uncouth tycoons of the north. The main thing holding the UK back from more covert support for the CSA was the antipathy for slavery found in the england at the time. Britain ended the transatlantic slave trade and had by 1860 one of the best anti-slavery records. While their sympathies laid with the CSA, slavery more than anything prevented them from helping.

Polonius wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

Draggoon wrote:

MDizzle wrote:Polonius all of you semantics about the war or lack there of make no difference the simple fact is that the flag is a symbol of racism bottom line.

I feel it appropriate to point out that it's only a symbol of racism because the North used slavery in order to give themselves the moral high ground. Prior to all the anti slavery bills... It wasn't even relevant to the conflict, and never was from the south's point of view.


On a more relevant note... I like the army.. keep it up!

Uhm, yeah what he said.

It really only became an issue in January 1863. When Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation. And only after the Union had secured a solid victory @ antitam (sp?). He waited mostly because most Northerners could not give a damn about slavery, and would react very poorly to fighting a war for slaves. And with a good win under his belts, he felt that it was safe to free the slaves. Oh, and the Proclamation in reality didn't do anything but give the North the moral high ground because it freed slaves in rebelling states. States that are rebelling. States that didn't care about Lincoln...

Oh and if I remember correctly, European support for the CSA went away quick after the Proclamation was issued. While the nobility ruling Europe would like nothing more then the cheap cotton that came out of the South, they would like to not be killed in a riot instigated by furious citizens.

If you're arguing for why the war was fought by the north, than the elimination of slavery didn't kick into until later. Originally it was about defending the union (let's not forget that the first aggression was by the south), but that's why the north was fighting, not why the south was fighting.

As for European support, I've actually done some research on the topic, and while only one nation formally supported the North (the Russians, of all people), no power came close to open support for the south. Yes, cotton was a big crop and part of the English economy, but there were bumper crops in Egypt and India that met most demand. More importantly, England imported huge amounts of grain from the North. going to war with the North meant food prices go up, really putting the hammer on a populace not wild about supporting slavery. There also were legitimate concerns about losing Canada, and there are even reports that the ambassador to London implied that the US has a huge population of Irish that wouldn't mind an attempt to liberate their home land. In the end, it wasn't worth it for the UK to support the CSA.

I was attempting, and failing at that, to show the common white northerner's opinion where it was more about getting the Union back together more then abolishing slavery.

And iirc (most likely not , I needa go through my US Hist. class again because I knew all that stuff you were talking about happened, I just forgot...) didn't Britain supplied a lot of material to the CSA?

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

Uhm, yeah what he said.

It really only became an issue in January 1863. When Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation. And only after the Union had secured a solid victory @ antitam (sp?). He waited mostly because most Northerners could not give a damn about slavery, and would react very poorly to fighting a war for slaves.

Exactly, the majority of Americans at the time (Northern and Southern) were completely indifferent to Slavery, but when you look at the fact that the countries founding fathers, where all primarily rich land owners who owned slaves, its not that hard to understand why it wasn't considered taboo... To say that the majority of the population at the time was all behind abolishing slavery would be false. In the long run you need to look at how things were constructed, the poor were fighting wars they had no personal stake in, Industrialization in the North along with the wealth that followed it, coupled with huge amounts of immigrants flooding into Northern cities who could care less about races getting drafted, with the immense amounts of agriculture the south had, was basically just another period in the American melting pot. I really think some people who are posting things as experts in this thread should really look more into the subject being discussed, as opposed to the 1/2 a semester of American History they took back in high school. None of us now will be fully able to understand social and economical trends and pressures 150 years ago. Once the North and South were done Killing each other, Lincoln was shot (By a northerner), they decided to turn their attention to making the Native Americans feel bad (Including Union heroes Grant and Sherman), Our brief history is littered with all sorts of black marks we shouldn't be proud of. But you have to look at the time and era. Still to this day and even in the north there are blatant and rampant acts of racism.

As for the Flag itself, If I'm not mistaken the state flags of Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina all use some form of the Confederate flag as a base for their flags currently. And while I personally wouldn't create a Confederate themed army, I also wouldn't create an Ultramarine or Dark Eldar Army. The 40k universe is supposed to be what everyone makes it, its large enough that the basic fluff covers whats going on, but there are so many holes in the storyline that people can create whatever. With billions of worlds, rebels, good guys and bad guys anything is possible.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:I was attempting, and failing at that, to show the common white northerner's opinion where it was more about getting the Union back together more then abolishing slavery.

And iirc (most likely not , I needa go through my US Hist. class again because I knew all that stuff you were talking about happened, I just forgot...) didn't Britain supplied a lot of material to the CSA?

It's ok. Yeah, while there was a vocal minority in the abolitionist movement, but most Northerners weren't strident about ending slavery.

The CSA bought supplies widely on the open market, including Britian, but I'm pretty sure they paid cash for everything.

Interestingly, the cotton workers of Manchester, who were unemployed due to the lack of Southern Cotton, stayed opposed to supporting the Confederacy, prompting Lincoln to write this letter to them:

"... I know and deeply deplore the sufferings which the working people of Manchester and in all Europe are called to endure in this crisis. It has been often and studiously represented that the attempt to overthrow this Government which was built on the foundation of human rights, and to substitute for it one which should rest exclusively on the basis of slavery, was unlikely to obtain the favour of Europe. Through the action of disloyal citizens, the working people of Europe have been subjected to a severe trial for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circumstances I cannot but regard your decisive utterances on the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country. It is indeed an energetic and re-inspiring assurance of the inherent truth and of the ultimate and universal triumph of justice, humanity and freedom.

I hail this interchange of sentiments, therefore, as an augury that, whatever else may happen, whatever misfortune may befall your country or my own, the peace and friendship which now exists between the two nations will be, as it shall be my desire to make them, perpetual."

—Abraham Lincoln, 19 January, 1863

Polonius wrote:

Bullfrog wrote:The other thing I've noticed in this thread is a few people tying European/British support for the Confederates into the debate. I'm not sure you could be less relevant to be honest; and if that's the route you want to take maybe investigate IRA funding over the last 30 years and see what that throws up. Idiots and extremists live everywhere.

Support for the CSA by Britain was mostly due to economic and frankly social ties. The planters functioned as an aristocracy similar to that found in Europe, unlike the more uncouth tycoons of the north. The main thing holding the UK back from more covert support for the CSA was the antipathy for slavery found in the england at the time. Britain ended the transatlantic slave trade and had by 1860 one of the best anti-slavery records. While their sympathies laid with the CSA, slavery more than anything prevented them from helping.

Way to ignore my point, whatever the motivations of those supporters I find it enormously unlikely that the OP is a closet Confederate.

God, if people find this offensive, I hate to think what people would think of a traitor legion of the 3rd Reich I started.
I will be quick to say that I am no racist and it is very heartening to see in a mass battle just how many guns are leveled at them untill they are all gone .

Nice paint job mate . Comming fom a fellow Brit who's best mate has just married a girl from Georgia.

Bullfrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Bullfrog wrote:The other thing I've noticed in this thread is a few people tying European/British support for the Confederates into the debate. I'm not sure you could be less relevant to be honest; and if that's the route you want to take maybe investigate IRA funding over the last 30 years and see what that throws up. Idiots and extremists live everywhere.

Support for the CSA by Britain was mostly due to economic and frankly social ties. The planters functioned as an aristocracy similar to that found in Europe, unlike the more uncouth tycoons of the north. The main thing holding the UK back from more covert support for the CSA was the antipathy for slavery found in the england at the time. Britain ended the transatlantic slave trade and had by 1860 one of the best anti-slavery records. While their sympathies laid with the CSA, slavery more than anything prevented them from helping.

Way to ignore my point, whatever the motivations of those supporters I find it enormously unlikely that the OP is a closet Confederate.

I wasn't ignoring your point, I was supporting it.

can i just say you guys are being pathetic. obsidian has the right idea about the hobby, he thought to make a cool army that may recieve flak. but he did it anyway, and i think it is a great idea, could you please post pics of it as i would love to see how it turned out

Polonius wrote:

Bullfrog wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Bullfrog wrote:The other thing I've noticed in this thread is a few people tying European/British support for the Confederates into the debate. I'm not sure you could be less relevant to be honest; and if that's the route you want to take maybe investigate IRA funding over the last 30 years and see what that throws up. Idiots and extremists live everywhere.

Support for the CSA by Britain was mostly due to economic and frankly social ties. The planters functioned as an aristocracy similar to that found in Europe, unlike the more uncouth tycoons of the north. The main thing holding the UK back from more covert support for the CSA was the antipathy for slavery found in the england at the time. Britain ended the transatlantic slave trade and had by 1860 one of the best anti-slavery records. While their sympathies laid with the CSA, slavery more than anything prevented them from helping.

Way to ignore my point, whatever the motivations of those supporters I find it enormously unlikely that the OP is a closet Confederate.

I wasn't ignoring your point, I was supporting it.

You were explaining it, but I take the point, no offence meant.

There's this game I play called Navy Field, where you get to play with several different WW2 factions: USA, Japan, Britain and Germany. that war was more recent, but I don't find it offensive that most of my friends play Japan (Philippines was attacked by Japan and well, you know how war goes) or USA (colonized us, remember?). And so far no one has called me racist or anti-Jew or a Neo-Nazi for playing with German Carriers (and destroyers).

So what I don't get is why people are offended by this. Playing with confederates doesn't make the player stand for what they stand for, just like playing with Tyranids doesn't make you yearn to kill every living thing.

I get it that wounds are still fresh and all that. But hey, the last world war was more recent, and as I remember it Japan was bombed by something that killed loads of them. In retaliation, they made Colonel William Guile.



Jokes aside, I think playing with an army like this doesn't make you a Confederate any more than playing a wizard in DnD make you able to cast spells in real life.

Well, this has been quite an interesting read (props to Polonius for injecting some civility and history into the discussion). I think the OP should probably follow the Mod's advice and start a new thread for discussion of the actual models.

I think it is a neat idea and could be done tastefully. The history discussion probably belongs more in general discussion though, tbh.

THIS my friend, is a great idea! If your going to make Lee, mabe go for a Stonewall Jackson as well? He would make a great advisor, as Jackson was his go to guy.

All this agruing about the war and the Confederate Battle Colors themselves isn't needed. The actual CSA flag is more traditional in regards of other national flags. Look it up and educate yourselves.

The racism debate is pointless, it happened 2 centuries ago. Saying what the CSA, its battle colors, its generals, and its beliefs don't affect the outcome of history. What we seem to be forgetting is that this war was the bloodiest of all conflicts in American History, and that it made the US what it is today. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it, as it is said.

My opinions come from a neutral standpoint in terms of the "North vs, South" ideals. In my family, we have ancestors who fought for both sides for various reasons. To call me a "yankee sympathizer" or a "dumb rebel" simply isn't fair.

But I digress. I would love to see more calvary modes as the south was renouned for this asset.

There are to many 'PC Brigade Warriors' nowadays!! I'd have no issue with any army based on ANY HISTORICAL army. Its history, get over it! In fact, I'd give you points for making it historically correct. Having an army themed like a Confederate Army doesn't make you into a hick driving around in your pick-up with a confederate flag and a noose hanging out the back.

One of my gaming buddies has this imaculate Steel Legion Army painted out like a German SS army from WW2. The detailing on it is superb, down to the Nazi symbols, SS badges, uniforms, everything. Even uses the Panzer Tank Cammo Schemes to make it historically correct. Does this make him some racist pratt who wants to gas everyone? He's also of 'black' origin.

I've a couple of squads of "Tal' Hibarn Terror Troops" in my PDF army using the Tallarn models with green stuff bomb vests modelled on them and a squad of converted rough riders carrying Taliban Flags. Does this make me anti-western? Pretty difficult seeing as I'm currently posted in the middle east with a lot of UK and American Troops.

Lets look at GW model ranges shall we?

Redemptionists - Paint em white and you've got the KKK. Even the backgrounds draw certain similiarities.
Valhalans - Modelled of Soviet Era Troops, we even have commirssar's who shoot thier own (watch the film 'Stalingrad'). Preatorians (watch Zulu).
Then there are too many SM chapters to mention.... Space Wolves = Vikings, White Scars = Mongolians etc etc.

Someone mentioned an IRA themed army. It wouldn't work because the IRA were (notice the word 'were') a terrorist organisation rather than an army. But, maybe a themed Urban Army with a unit of Veterans themed as an IRA hit squad would work.

Keep up the good work, its nice to see a good themed army out there. Seeing as its a Cival War themed army, try using some Warhammer Cannons for your Mortar Teams?

TheSecretSquig wrote:Keep up the good work, its nice to see a good themed army out there. Seeing as its a Cival War themed army, try using some Warhammer Cannons for your Mortar Teams?

Now that is an idea I can approve of.

So beside stupid people arguing how this is bad (it was states rights they fought over btw). This is a great Idea like the Gen. Lee and the rank and file colors and tank colors and added colors. But Maybe badab black them. Atleast no one is saying dkok is nazi's(there french and german ww1 and 2 combined) Plus the 40k universe slaughters people whole sale so ya if you are still offeneded grow up if you don't like it remember this I defend your rights and I have no problem with it.

SaintHazard wrote:Yes, but this is four pages of civil and polite WARRGHRBL, the best kind.

My biggest issue, as I said before, is nothing regarding the army itself, rather OP's misconception of Americans... that honestly bothers me a little. Saying all Americans are Confederates is more than a little ignorant, if you ask me...

Particularly given that common Commonwealth parlance for Americans is 'Yank' because I know just how much the Southerners love being called that.

MDizzle wrote:If you don't have an issue with the stars and bars I would suggest that you do a little more research in to it's current context. Confederate flag, a long-time symbol of racial hatred.

Those who object because the rebel flag is "part of their heritage?" So is Willie Horton. The hoop skirts and plantations are completely dependent on the slave trade and Jim Crow, nostalgia for racial inequity. Shame.

I have a confederate flag, its on the wall, but apparently that makes me a racist. You're view is colored more by the media im sure. I don't know a single place that uses them in a racial manner and there are quite a few of them flying around here. The racists are the ones on the news because the media pushes anti-southern sentiment in conjunction with its 'conservatives are backward racist hicks' campaign while the government is constantly pushing to gain more power over the people and the states. The stars and bars are primarily a symbol of the states rights over that of the federal government. States rights and the resignation of the south were the primary reasons for the war.

"As for the slaves I care not for them. If I could keep the nation together and free them I'd do it, but if I could keep them enslaved and keep the nation together I would do that." ~President Lincoln.

The slave issue was only a moral justification in the eyes of an ignorant people who had never seen a slave laborer who abhored blacks more than those that enslaved them.

ghostmaker wrote:So beside stupid people arguing how this is bad (it was states rights they fought over btw)..

Yes. The right to hold other humans as chattel property.

Seriously, after a five page thread, some acknowledgment of the complexities of the issue would be at least polite.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:

I have a confederate flag, its on the wall, but apparently that makes me a racist. You're view is colored more by the media im sure. I don't know a single place that uses them in a racial manner and there are quite a few of them flying around here.

Are you arguing that the flag has never been used by racist groups?

The racists are the ones on the news because the media pushes anti-southern sentiment in conjunction with its 'conservatives are backward racist hicks' campaign while the government is constantly pushing to gain more power over the people and the states. The stars and bars are primarily a symbol of the states rights over that of the federal government. States rights and the resignation of the south were the primary reasons for the war.

What rights, other than slavery (and possibly controlling the entire country politically) do you think the war was fought over? Do you really think the south went to war over the tarriff on iron?

"As for the slaves I care not for them. If I could keep the nation together and free them I'd do it, but if I could keep them enslaved and keep the nation together I would do that." ~President Lincoln.

The slave issue was only a moral justification in the eyes of an ignorant people who had never seen a slave laborer who abhored blacks more than those that enslaved them.

I think you're going to have a hard time defending the idea that the North hated blacks more than the south. I mean, slavery was phased out of the north voluntarily, northern states quickly ratified the 13th and 15th amendments. I think the group of people that enslaves blacks, and then terrorized and lynched free blacks at will for generations, might also have hated black people. I don't know.

MDizzle wrote:If you don't have an issue with the stars and bars I would suggest that you do a little more research in to it's current context. Confederate flag, a long-time symbol of racial hatred.

Those who object because the rebel flag is "part of their heritage?" So is Willie Horton. The hoop skirts and plantations are completely dependent on the slave trade and Jim Crow, nostalgia for racial inequity. Shame.

There were thousands of black slave owners too and to say that the entire Southern heritage is based on slavery is ignorant. Outside of the Cajun areas, there was considerable influence on local culture from the Scottish and Scots-Irish settlers, they were the originators of the gospel singing, the whole 'Southern hospitality' (from Gaelic culture) thing, bluegrass (essentially British folk music) the Confederate flag of course and even some of the traditions of the original klan such as the firery cross which was originally a call to arms in time of war amongst the clans. How it ended up being planted on people's front lawns I've no idea but ignorant people will always do stupid things.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheSecretSquig wrote:


Someone mentioned an IRA themed army. It wouldn't work because the IRA were (notice the word 'were') a terrorist organisation rather than an army. But, maybe a themed Urban Army with a unit of Veterans themed as an IRA hit squad would work.

You could make a terrorist themed army using the ork codex but with human models, bomb squigs for instance could be suicide bombers. Orks would probably also make a good non-chaos renegade army such as representing a mutant uprising or a non imperial religious cult fighting for its existence.

People need to perhaps read a little more closely.

No, owning or painting a confederate flag does not "Make" you racist.

Nor would painting an army of penal legion painted up like Jewish concentration camp prisoners but I probably wouldn't choose to do it.

The point was that if you chose to do something like this out of context one has to expect one's motivations to be questioned.

The point is most people don't go around painting controversial symbols onto things just for kicks, so people are gonna be curious why someone would do so.

If someone shows up in my play group with swastikas on his models I'm gonna be curious why.

Likewise for those whining about people not liking the idea: The OP didn't have to start this thread, after all they are his models and he can obviously do what he wants with them. However he chose to put the spotlight on himself and he asked for feedback/opinions on the idea. We didn't kick his door in and start berating him unsolicited. If you don't want honest feedback, then don't post something like this on an international public forum. My guess is he got exactly the kind of reaction and attention he was expecting...

I think what the OP was getting at with saying over here there is nothing more american than the confederates is the stereotypes that stick in your mind i.e. trailer trash, rednecks and the confederate flag have been stereotyped into americans and thus you'd get a fair few brits who'd think of americans as rednecks or trailer trash, not a new york stock broker etc. and call them yanks. Same way in the states and even here in britain most would get the image of the irish as guiness/whiskey swilling red heads dressed in green and the scots as beer/whiskey swilling louts with red hair dressed in kilts blowing on a bag pipe. I often get jibes from americans about eating crumpets and drinking tea despite this being a common english stereotype and me being a welshman alas not many americans know of wales or if they do they don't seem to recognise it as a seperate country (the common stereotype of the welsh is the questionable 'habit' of fornicating with sheep ) Look at modern media and you see these stereotypes all the time. It's not a accurate portrayal of the population and most wouldn't take offence to it. The OP didn't intend to offend anyone when he made that statement, I think he just needed to word it better!

As far as the flag goes I would leave it on the car, it's something I'd associate first and foremost with the car and the show. This could be because I'm british though! I can honestly say I have very little knowledge of the civil war, which has made this a very interesting read, so thank you to everyone involved, that said I wouldn't have any problem playing against this army, a soviet or even nazi themed army as long as I was confident the person wasn't a complete racist and there was nothing overly offensive in there, but then I guess that would be a perspective thing, what may not offend me - the flag for example, could be very offensive to someone who would associate it with modern day racists.

Just my thoughts on the matter, the main thing I wanted to get across was that the OP didn't mean to offend anyone with his comment

Regards, Grimm

I think they're well painted and enjoyed the details, especially the hats. Good detail. I'd roll dice and see how many plastic models I can on nom nom with my fex.

Just a quick addition: I'm guilty of painting stars and bars on my models. One of my Cadian Vets had the bandanna head from a catachan sprue, and it got painted in confederate battle colors. Honestly, it looks alot better than a red bandanna, and it adds much deserved flavor to a squad of rag-tag, been there and done that soldiers.


Does that make me racist? I don't think so. I think in general, we have all taken this thread a bit too seriously. I say this for both sides of the argument. At the end of the day, theyre just overpriced plastic men.

Polonius wrote:

ghostmaker wrote:So beside stupid people arguing how this is bad (it was states rights they fought over btw)..

Yes. The right to hold other humans as chattel property.

Seriously, after a five page thread, some acknowledgment of the complexities of the issue would be at least polite.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:

I have a confederate flag, its on the wall, but apparently that makes me a racist. You're view is colored more by the media im sure. I don't know a single place that uses them in a racial manner and there are quite a few of them flying around here.

Are you arguing that the flag has never been used by racist groups?

The racists are the ones on the news because the media pushes anti-southern sentiment in conjunction with its 'conservatives are backward racist hicks' campaign while the government is constantly pushing to gain more power over the people and the states. The stars and bars are primarily a symbol of the states rights over that of the federal government. States rights and the resignation of the south were the primary reasons for the war.

What rights, other than slavery (and possibly controlling the entire country politically) do you think the war was fought over? Do you really think the south went to war over the tarriff on iron?

"As for the slaves I care not for them. If I could keep the nation together and free them I'd do it, but if I could keep them enslaved and keep the nation together I would do that." ~President Lincoln.

The slave issue was only a moral justification in the eyes of an ignorant people who had never seen a slave laborer who abhored blacks more than those that enslaved them.

I think you're going to have a hard time defending the idea that the North hated blacks more than the south. I mean, slavery was phased out of the north voluntarily, northern states quickly ratified the 13th and 15th amendments. I think the group of people that enslaves blacks, and then terrorized and lynched free blacks at will for generations, might also have hated black people. I don't know.

I am not argueing that its never been used by racist groups. If I want an india themed army I'm going to paint swastika's on the tanks if I feel like it because that's their symbol, regardless of what others do to it. If some idiot refuses to play me because of it and won't listen to an explanation its his loss not mine.

Slavery wasn't the right being fought over, it was the right of states to make their own decisions in regards to the powers that they are allotted in the constitution (10th amendment I believe). After the Civil War the government repeatedly increases its power and limited the power of the states with the backing of the supreme court making little light of the fact thats its specifically unconstitutional. Secondly, don't judge the South by modern standards, that's a Anthropology 101 mistake. The system had been in place for hundreds of years and suddenly a bunch of people who are so far removed from the situation, with the exception of propaganda and works of fiction, and have never even met a black person suddenly decide that what is being done is wrong. This would be the equivelent of if say Canada declared that the United States method of paying employees was barbaric and that we immediately have to conform to their new standards. On top of that all future peoples will view us as racist/sexist/agist/w/e and that we're all horrible people. Do you feel like a horrible person for such? I don't and neither did the average person then. The north didn't have need of slaves, they had an abundance of migrant workers that worked longer hours and given poor housing in a quality not far removed from the southern slaves. In some cases the southern slave was far better off than the northern trench digger/factory worker.
"No dogs, no blacks, no Irish allowed" was a frequent sign in northern establishments and work places.

I was gonna say something, but then I realized what I was about to say was slowed. Much like large tracts of the thread. So instead, a palette cleanser.



Now, can we please get some more up close pics of the army? Remember the miniatures? They're from the game we play. The GAME. That we play for fun.

Luco wrote:
I am not argueing that its never been used by racist groups. If I want an india themed army I'm going to paint swastika's on the tanks if I feel like it because that's their symbol, regardless of what others do to it. If some idiot refuses to play me because of it and won't listen to an explanation its his loss not mine.

That's fair, even though I think Indians could suggest many other symbols that you could use that wouldn't potentially bother people.

Slavery wasn't the right being fought over, it was the right of states to make their own decisions in regards to the powers that they are allotted in the constitution (10th amendment I believe). After the Civil War the government repeatedly increases its power and limited the power of the states with the backing of the supreme court making little light of the fact thats its specifically unconstitutional.

Ok, what you're arguing is correct, but people don't fight over abstract rights. People fight over tangible rights. States rights were important, but there the main issue in which the states and federal government disagreed was slavery. You can't gloss over that. Earlier I quoted the "cornerstone speech," which showed that support for the war in the south was at least strongly due to defense of the institution of slavery.

Secondly, don't judge the South by modern standards, that's a Anthropology 101 mistake. The system had been in place for hundreds of years and suddenly a bunch of people who are so far removed from the situation, with the exception of propaganda and works of fiction, and have never even met a black person suddenly decide that what is being done is wrong. This would be the equivelent of if say Canada declared that the United States method of paying employees was barbaric and that we immediately have to conform to their new standards. On top of that all future peoples will view us as racist/sexist/agist/w/e and that we're all horrible people. Do you feel like a horrible person for such? I don't and neither did the average person then. The north didn't have need of slaves, they had an abundance of migrant workers that worked longer hours and given poor housing in a quality not far removed from the southern slaves. In some cases the southern slave was far better off than the northern trench digger/factory worker.
"No dogs, no blacks, no Irish allowed" was a frequent sign in northern establishments and work places.

I've addressed this, and if you'd taken the time to read the thread instead of wading in hip deep, you'd have read where I posted quotes from Lee and Jefferson basically saying that they thought slavery was evil and immoral. The thinkers of their own time questioned slavery, not just now.

I'm curious where you're going with the idea that the idea of slavery was questioned by people who'd "never met a black person." Are you arguing that based on the intimate knowledge they had, the Southerners knew that slavery was the best possible option? Are you arguing that the North was wrong to try to stop it? I mean, this isn't the health care debate. It's a little silly to paint a picture of the poor hard working slave owners getting hassled by Washington elites trying to press the liberal agenda of "not owning other people" down their throats.

I'm also not sure you can argue that abstract rights are incredibly important, and then argue that slaves were better off than poor free workers. Often the standard of living was better (comparing the best plantations to the worst mills), but few people would willingly enter that kind of slavery.

And, btw, the "No Irish" thing has, at best, sketchy historical evidence. The Irish were treated pretty badly, but that bit is mostly myth.

Roughly 15% of the population of the south had something to do with the slave trade. Owners, handlers, sellers, etc

The other 85% were normal people in typical occupations.

They had the constitutional right to leave the union.

They did.

The North decided to call it a "rebellion" and proceeded to mobilize for war.

Keep the flag on your models.

We in England, do have a simiar problem.

Every time England has a major sporting event or when St' Georges day comes around our news papers have always have some story. Some over zelous police Constable or council official banning the flag of St' George in fear of causing some perceived offence to some minority. Because in the past an even smaller minority of G*ts have used it to represent their hate groups. Every year they ask leaders in the Hindi, Islam, black, Jewish and other communities and every time they say the same thing, that they were not offended by the Cross of St. George and are in full understanding that it is just a select few Wers who use it as a racist image.

I think it's quite derogatory for people to try and ban these images to defend the sensibilities of race or religion. Its almost racist to do so. Its almost like saying "There, there little people the (insert the ethnic majority here) will defend you from the possibility of being offended wether you are offended or not!". To quibble about certain imagery on the baisis of an assumption only serves to draw a wedge in society and breed discontent between people. If an image is truely offensive every one will agree and then let the image be band.

The UK and USA are alike in that our legal system, in theory, works on the basis of innocent 'till proven guilty. So let us English subjects fly the Flag of St' George, let the citizens of the South Fly the Stars and bars with out being accused of being rasist. In that case let all the people of America fly 'Old Glory' without fear of offending people of the middle east. And the most obvious on let people like the Finnish Airforce fly a swastika on their emolem or reenactors (of many diffrent periods), people from many asian nations/religions or any other mirad peoples display a swastika with out being accused of being a Nazi.

I will pre-empt the inevitable counter agument being that, in that case you sould be able to fly a flag with a swastika with out fear of being a racist. If you do fly a flag with a red background with a swastika on a white circle (made famous by the Nazis) outside your own house then it is a very strong indications of a particular politcal leanings, but only because this image has been universally condemned. Other applications of this form of swastika I think can be justified. I made the 3rd reich marines on the baisis of being the archetypal bad guy, sould you condem Spielberg for using Nazi as the Bad Guys in Indiana Jones? Of course not. Sould you condem all the actors that have played Nazis as being Nazi sympathizers? Of course you wouldn't. The people who choose to play Nazis in battle reeanctment are in no way Nazi sympathizers, i've spoken to some and some of them have even got Jewish ancestry, they play the Germans for several reasons, so the allied reeactors have some one to fight against, so we never forget how the madness of a few enslaved a nation and also to remove some of the mistique around the Nazi. The more you make something taboo the more intresting it becomes to people with extreme views. Also the best way to destoy the mistique of some thing evil is to make it a joke, like in the film The Producers.

I'm not saying that there may some people who paint models with the Stars and Bars or Swastika, who do have extream views. Some may do it simply to provoke a reaction this is part of removing the mistique of the image. But to assume some one is an extreamist just because of a paint job is pure ignorance. Until they, in all seriousnes, start spouting racist propoganda, you will never know!

Remember: Innocent until proven guilty!



Phew, sorry about the lecture and the inevitable spelling, punctuation and gramma errors.

As there do seem to be people who make insant assumptions, I am not illiterate, I just suffer from dyslexia and im not offened by spelling Nazis (see I proved some of my point about joking about evil ) nor am I offened by dyslexic jokes.

FlyDog wrote:

Now, can we please get some more up close pics of the army? Remember the miniatures? They're from the game we play. The GAME. That we play for fun.

I'm gonna point out once again that the OP asked for people's opinions on this topic, in fact in his first post he said:

I would appreciate your opinions on the topic.

All the people rushing to defend him as if he is getting ambushed need to maybe reread his first post. If people don't wan't people's opinions then don't ask for it.

snurl wrote:Roughly 15% of the population of the south had something to do with the slave trade. Owners, handlers, sellers, etc

The other 85% were normal people in typical occupations.

They had the constitutional right to leave the union.

They did.

The North decided to call it a "rebellion" and proceeded to mobilize for war.

You realize that just saying you have a constitutional right doesn't' make it so? The Constitution is silent about secession, while the Articles of Confederation explicitly forbade it The supreme court eventually ruled that it was illegal. So there isn't a lot of evidence to support that assertion. there is, however, pretty ample evidence (before and after the war) that there isn't such a right.

As to the north calling it a rebellion, if you read the actual sequence of events, the North didn't mobilize until after the South fired on Fort Sumter. Now, I can sit and listen to some arguments for legal secession, but I would imagine there would be payment for federal property. Shelling federal troops is an act of war. There is some evidence that the Upper South, including Virginia, only seceded because they didn't want to have to help send troops to pacity the deep south. This simply wasn't a case of the south politely announcing that they were leaving, and the North rushing in with men and guns. And that's even if you hold that secession is legal (which I and the courts don't).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:
All the people rushing to defend him as if he is getting ambushed need to maybe reread his first post. If people don't wan't people's opinions then don't ask for it.

as a rule, by page five of any given thread you get people reading a few posts and then writitng somethign in response. This is certainly no exception. I particularly like the posts chiding us for being pathetic, or overly sensitive, or some such when aside from a few loose cannons I think most objections have been measured and well thought out.

@Obsidian: Actually in the US the first amendment, more than due process, protects a person's ability to fly whatever flag they want. Alas, constitutional protections don't apply to private actors, which is why you can throw somebody out of your house for saying things you don't like. I don't think the stars and bars is bad, I'm mostly here because a lot of people seem to have some pretty serious misconceptions of the American Civil War, which isn't surprising given 150 years of "Lost Cause" romanticism about the subject.

cadbren wrote:

Phryxis wrote:People on the internet are such outspoken moralists. In real life, they don't say anything.

Here's what I don't get:

Actual Swastika clad SS Panzer army for Flames of War: ok.

SS themed army for 40K: EVIL!

Actual Confederate army for [Insert Civil War Game Title Here]: ok

Confederate themed army for 40K: EVIL!

I DO NOT LIKE DUMBNESS. MAKE IT STOP BEING.

I had an online argument once about violent toys. These people thought the idea of toys armed with modern guns was too violent, but the same toys armed with swords and axes was fine - simply because they thought of swords etc as belonging to the romantic past without thinking about the reality. Lots of people don't think through their prejudices and some hate being challenged on them. Note the above people who have threatened physical violence and destruction of property because they view the other side as being prejudiced and/or ignorant!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Re the flag thing, the confederate flag is part of the Georgia State Flag, something to bear in mind.

That same argument is why Lego would not produce modern models of warfare, but knights, cowboys, and native americans were just dandy!

Polonius wrote:as a rule, by page five of any given thread you get people reading a few posts and then writitng somethign in response. This is certainly no exception. I particularly like the posts chiding us for being pathetic, or overly sensitive, or some such when aside from a few loose cannons I think most objections have been measured and well thought out.

@Obsidian: Actually in the US the first amendment, more than due process, protects a person's ability to fly whatever flag they want. Alas, constitutional protections don't apply to private actors, which is why you can throw somebody out of your house for saying things you don't like. I don't think the stars and bars is bad, I'm mostly here because a lot of people seem to have some pretty serious misconceptions of the American Civil War, which isn't surprising given 150 years of "Lost Cause" romanticism about the subject.

I have been reading from the begining.

I'm sorry if I have been misintereprated (definately my fault, I have the idea of what I'm saying in my head, I just cant get it out on paper or in this case screen). I am in no way accusing you or many others in this thread of being over sensitive. I'm just saying that there are people who are in the world and that one of the solution (although flawed as it is) is to assume the better of a person befor the worst.

As for the romanticism i'm well awaire of this effect. I do historic re-enactment of the napoleonic wars and this is extremly romantasiced especally the man himself Napoleon. I don't want to derail thia thread an more by delving in this part of history but it can be said that many people have the romanic view of his wars and only mention the good that he did (and he did do some good, this is hard for me to say being a red blooded English man) but they do tend to gloss over the bad. The same goes for us brits (Badajos springs to mind). But overall the period is probably our equivelent in romace terms.

I'm going to butt out of any further comments now before digging myself any deeper in to a hole and only comment on paint jobs from now on All this writing makes my brain hurt.

I'm surprised this has lasted so many pages. I don't particularly like the confederacy, but I think it's a cool idea...Good luck.

1 Fort Sumpter was under orders not to surrender.
2 The articles of secession are still in the US constitution.

Here we go again...

Mods.... lock please...

I love the General Lee haha.

Scifi rednecks!

warboss wrote:

WaaaaghLord wrote:1) To say that someone is wrong for making an army based around this theme is a hairs breadth away from claiming it didn't even happen at all.

2) There are plenty of references to major forces in world history in Warhammer 40k, for example, the Death Korps Of Kreig. Are you telling me a Jewish gamer should get offended every time a DKOK army is put down opposing them? I think not.

1) not. even. close. it's not even the same solar system let alone ballpark. saying that it may lead to trouble by memorializing an army for a scifi universe that (among other things) stood for the protection of the institution of slavery is NOT even remotely close to saying the war didn't happen. hyperbole much?

2) plenty of german jews served in the kaiser's armed forces in WWI which is what the DKOK is based on. you're off by about 25 years and one world war.

1) I think you misunderstood. The "Civil" war was an integral part of US history. Why when it is brought up in this context is it suddenly a taboo? Maybe I was a bit extreme with the "saying it never happened" crack, but I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from. Games like SoTR are based on the events of WWII, although not a historical game, surely this is the same idea?

2) Perfect example of why posts should not be made at 3 or 4 in the morning, without looking into it before running my mouth/keyboard. This is my bad.

However the question does remain, why is this thread still open?

The part i don't like is i like the "Scifi" escapism. the getting away from the real world stuff. to me it's like doing an IG army themed around the
German WWII army. most of the time they look great (like this one does), they're just out of place to me in the 40k realm. i think it isn't as original
as it could have been.

not gonna read WALLS OF TEXT AND DRAMA but wasnt the "main confederate flag" never really was the "standard" of army standards in the war?

anyways novel idea I suppose OP. I was thinking of picking up some perry ACW minis my self for a frontier world styled guard

Joetaco wrote:see this is the grand problem w/ america. people with very little knowledge, but very strong opinions are allowed to voice them on public forums and are not only protected by law to voice whatever stupid opinion they have, but are protected by law to such an extent that they think that they're opinion is right and socially acceptable and they are allowed to voice it whenever they damn well please.

It sounds to me like you're very young and haven't thought through what you're saying. If encyclopedic knowledge of a subject was requisite to voicing your thoughts, then nobody would ever talk, nobody would ever question, and nobody would ever learn or be a part of the socio-political discourse. To wit: if it wasn't for the very right you claim is problematic, you wouldn't be speaking right now because your comment betrays a pretty vast naivete.

But hey, if having the freedom to speak and openly criticize your government is a problem for you, I hear that N Korea is GREAT this time of year. It'll put a hamper on your 40k career, though.

Please, they'll probably make him into a prodigy. It'll be like USA vs. USSR in hockey. Only with 40k.

hemingway wrote:

Joetaco wrote:see this is the grand problem w/ america. people with very little knowledge, but very strong opinions are allowed to voice them on public forums and are not only protected by law to voice whatever stupid opinion they have, but are protected by law to such an extent that they think that they're opinion is right and socially acceptable and they are allowed to voice it whenever they damn well please.

But hey, if having the freedom to speak and openly criticize your government is a problem for you, I hear that N Korea is GREAT this time of year. It'll put a hamper on your 40k career, though.

Glorious Leader loves the Grim Darkness of the far future...

I take it they're under the assumption that Horus won the war?

And this civil war goes on, and on, and on.

I don't care if someone already said it or not, but he could say it's the Alabama State flag, not the Confederate flag. Now a days, it's not even called the "Confederate Flag." It's usually referred as the "Rebel Flag," if Alabama has nothing to do with it.

egor71 wrote:And this civil war goes on, and on, and on.

Strangers, waiting, up and down the boulevard.Their shadows searching in the night.

Anyone?

This is a 40k thread, not a historical and political debate. Kudos to the well painted miniatures good sir!

kastellan wrote:This is a 40k thread, not a historical and political debate. Kudos to the well painted miniatures good sir!

You're a bit late.

That changed about six pages ago.

SaintHazard wrote:

kastellan wrote:This is a 40k thread, not a historical and political debate. Kudos to the well painted miniatures good sir!

You're a bit late.

That changed about six pages ago.

Actually it NEVER was solely a "40K thread" about painted miniatures per se. In the original post the OP (if one cares to read it) specifically asks for people's opinions about doing what he has done and if they think it is ok, as I already pointed out.

So people did that.

Then certain people went nuts and rushed to defend someone who himself wasn't asking to be defended...

MDizzle wrote:Yuk a team of racists Booo to the stars and bars. Why would any of those flags be more appropriate? They all stand for the same bigotry and hatred. Maybe for you next army you will do a klan army wont that be fun.

You need Spell Check. You Need Grammer Check. However, You need Asshat Check, most of all!

I should put a swastika somewhere in all my posts so that they get 6 pages of responses, also.

JDM wrote:

MDizzle wrote:Yuk a team of racists Booo to the stars and bars. Why would any of those flags be more appropriate? They all stand for the same bigotry and hatred. Maybe for you next army you will do a klan army wont that be fun.

You need Spell Check. You Need Grammer Check. However, You need Asshat Check, most of all!

That would be Grammar Check.

Unless of course you defer everything to Kelsey Grammer who seemingly is a smart fellow.

I believe that he was refering to Kelsey Grammer, I keep him on speed dial for just such occasions.

~Iron

Thanks for the clarification.