50512
Post by: Jihadin
Political correctness rears its ugly head again 
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
This would come up every time one of the TV movies would be made, and when the terrible movie came out.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
While Ill be the first to bash anyone who flies a confederate flag, This us just stupid. ITs part of the show and its incongraphy. It wuld be like making Daisy 350 pounds.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
hotsauceman wrote: It wuld be like making Daisy 350 pounds.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
99.9% of people with Confederate Flags are racist nutjobs. The other 0.01% are usually just people who don't know what the flag symbolizes.
That bein' said and all, it's an important part of the show, so I'm conflicted about this.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
It was a battle standard. It got the negative press when the hate groups took it up.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Why should the Confederate flag be acceptable and the Nazi one not? They're both equally hateful symbols even if you claim them to be "battle standards".
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Malcolm X flag be right up there to.
34168
Post by: Amaya
You're as ignorant of Malcom X as Az is of the Taliban.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Just because someone flies the Confederate Flag doesn't make them racist. Plenty of people use it to remember the war and those that died. Or maybe they're a Civil War reenactor? history buff?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Hence no flags in the military are hanged in the barracks room.
edit
Not even state flags.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Why can't I fly a Nazi flag to remember those who died for the Reich?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Thats your personnel preference if you want to fly the Nazi flag.
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
 LoneLictor wrote:
99.9% of people with Confederate Flags are racist nutjobs. The other 0.01% are usually just people who don't know what the flag symbolizes.
That bein' said and all, it's an important part of the show, so I'm conflicted about this.
Actually, you are ignoring the small number of people who show it as a symbol of heritage. I was a reenactor for over 8 years, and I still fight against people who are ignorant of the meaning of the flag and abuse its history for their own ignorant means.
I'd say its about 4% are history buffs/reenactors, 46% are misuse it for racist means, and 46% display their ignorance of its history. The last two categories are interchangeable, of course...
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
 Grey Templar wrote:Just because someone flies the Confederate Flag doesn't make them racist. Plenty of people use it to remember the war and those that died. Or maybe they're a Civil War reenactor? history buff?
That being said the flag SHOULD be on the car.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Who was the politician that was a Waffen SS reenactor? The one mention as a possible racist.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Grey Templar wrote:Just because someone flies the Confederate Flag doesn't make them racist. Plenty of people use it to remember the war and those that died. Or maybe they're a Civil War reenactor? history buff?
That works just as well as this...
Grey Templar wrote:Just because someone flies the Nazi Flag doesn't make them racist. Plenty of people use it to remember the war and those that died. Or maybe they're a WWII reenactor? history buff?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I fail to see humor.
Saying someone is Racist just because they fly the Confederate flag is a gross generalization. its like saying the German people were evil jew killers, the vast majority had no idea what was going on in their country till the Allies forced them to parade through liberated Concentration Camps.
Edit: The Confederate Flag was not a symbol of hate. It was a symbol of freedom. The Nazi party had no redeeming qualities. The 2 are not on the same level.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Saying someone is Racist just because they fly the Confederate flag is a gross generalization. its like saying the German people were evil jew killers, the vast majority had no idea what was going on in their country till the Allies forced them to parade through liberated Concentration Camps.
Some people won't see it that way. Like everyone that was in the Waffen SS were Nazi's.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Stupid is and stupid does.
I was playing Flames of War one day at the hobby shop. Some lady that was just walking through the store came back and saw us playing. Got really upset and pissy over the Swastikas and German flags painted on the German tanks.
Knee jerk reactions are so dumb.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Grey Templar wrote:I fail to see humor.
Saying someone is Racist just because they fly the Confederate flag is a gross generalization. its like saying the German people were evil jew killers, the vast majority had no idea what was going on in their country till the Allies forced them to parade through liberated Concentration Camps.
Very few people in modern day America fail to understand what this flag stands for in the present day or are in the dark about what certain groups do in it's name.
I have never met anypne who flies it who does so simply because he is a civil war larper or because he was unaware of it's racial/hate connotation. In fact I have met few who fly it who don't drop the N-bomb freely or wouldnt offe to help the Germans finish their work...
121
Post by: Relapse
LoneLictor wrote:
99.9% of people with Confederate Flags are racist nutjobs. The other 0.01% are usually just people who don't know what the flag symbolizes.
That bein' said and all, it's an important part of the show, so I'm conflicted about this.
The flag represents a lot of things to a lot of people. To many southerners I know, it represents personal rights and freedom and doesn't have a thing to do with racism. Consider this, there are a lot of Klan rallies where the U.S. Flag is displayed prominantly. Does this mean it represents racism? Couple this with the fact that the stars and stripes flew over slave holders far longer than the stars and bars and that the civil war really wasn't about freeing the slaves as much as it was about holding the union together.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Grey Templar wrote:Stupid is and stupid does.
I was playing Flames of War one day at the hobby shop. Some lady that was just walking through the store came back and saw us playing. Got really upset and pissy over the Swastikas and German flags painted on the German tanks.
Knee jerk reactions are so dumb.
markings on FOW tanks ARE situationally/contextually appropriate. FOW is a reinactment of WWII. Putting A natzi flag or a confedorate flag on the back of your pickup truck is not even close to being the same...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
MY Sociology Proffesor Said this "Just because they are ignorant of what it means, doesnt excuse them, They should know whatthe flag they are flying means"
963
Post by: Mannahnin
The confederate flag originated in the rebellion of civil war. A war which was fought for one main, and evil cause. Let me quote some of the justifications for it from its proponents and champions:
Jefferson Davis, President of the CSA wrote:"The condition of slavery with us is ... nothing but the form of civil government instituted for a class of people not fit to govern themselves. It is exactly what in every State exists in some form or other. It is just that kind of control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts, its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority."
State of Texas' formal declaration of cause wrote:We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens wrote:(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 cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery– subordination to the superior race– is his natural and normal condition.
Good article:
http://www.thehypertexts.com/What%20caused%20the%20Civil%20War%20Slavery.htm
Honestly the Confederate Battle Flag is a more evil symbol, I would say, than the Swastika. The Swastika pre-dates the Nazis and was just used by them. The Confederate Battle Flag originated as the standard under which the cause of slavery was championed. The flag which flew as rebel Americans shot other Americans over the right to own human beings. It has historical importance, but as a symbol of an evil cause, in which many evil, and many other deeply misguided, people fought.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Grey Templar wrote:I fail to see humor.
Saying someone is Racist just because they fly the Confederate flag is a gross generalization. its like saying the German people were evil jew killers, the vast majority had no idea what was going on in their country till the Allies forced them to parade through liberated Concentration Camps.
Edit: The Confederate Flag was not a symbol of hate. It was a symbol of freedom. The Nazi party had no redeeming qualities. The 2 are not on the same level.
el oh el
Well, it sure as hell isn't a symbol of black freedom.
Jihadin wrote:Saying someone is Racist just because they fly the Confederate flag is a gross generalization. its like saying the German people were evil jew killers, the vast majority had no idea what was going on in their country till the Allies forced them to parade through liberated Concentration Camps.
Some people won't see it that way. Like everyone that was in the Waffen SS were Nazi's.
And the poor Buddhists can't have their swastikas courtesy of the Nazis.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
The buddist swastika is reverse and pretty much seen in asian country. Also the native american swastika is no longer shown due to its connection of the Nazi swastika. Someone posted that earlier back...like two weeks ago.
34168
Post by: Amaya
There was a Pokemon card with a Buddhist swastika that was edited for its US release.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
No it wasn't edited. Thats the correct version of the asian swastika. Wait. Its red. They're suppose to be green
34168
Post by: Amaya
That's the unedited Japanese version.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
The Civil was over States Rights. The US Government was telling the States what they had to do. In response many States succeed from the Union, basically telling the Federal Government to “Go to Blazes”. The Confederate Flag was the flag they chose. It is a part of our history and should not be outlawed by those who are ignorant of the Politics of the Times.
I bet you if you asked any one under the age of 30 what the Civil War was over, there answer would be Slavery and they would only be partly right. This in the since that the State Right they were fighting over was Slavery. If you told them that part they would look at you like you had no idea what you were talking about.
My family fought on both sides of the Civil War. I am proud of that heritage. The Flag of the Union and the Flag of the Confederacy are both part of that. If I flew Both Flags and I was told to take one Down, I would be insulted no mater witch one it was.
Now do to a bunch of Ignorant People I can’t fly the one given to my by my Grandfather without someone coming up to me telling me I am a Racist or a Nazi. I am neither!
As far as the General Lee losing its Flag, they might as well name it the Mcullen and put the Union Flag on it and change the site of the Dukes to Ohio.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Yes, it was over State's Rights. That doesn't change the fact the Confederates were fighting to keep their slaves as well.
29110
Post by: AustonT
 hotsauceman1 wrote:While Ill be the first to bash anyone who flies a confederate flag, This us just stupid. ITs part of the show and its incongraphy. It wuld be like making Daisy 350 pounds.
You can have a word with the state of Georgia. They fly hem at every state building. Good luck on your trip.
50446
Post by: Piston Honda
Smoking some
Stars and Bars, at least in this country seems to have a wide range of beliefs of the flag stands for. Some it is a symbol of southern pride, for others it's a symbol of racism and the oppression of a people.
Don't really have an opinion of which one is more accurate, not sure if there is one.
If someone wants to wave a flag in the name of Racial superiority, let them, I support free speech in all forms. Just don't complain if people call you a douchebag for being racist.
Though I have to wonder, if the stars and bars are seen as a symbol of incarceration, murder etc. what do some people think of the stars and stripes? Native Americans, Maxicans, Filipinos, etc?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I wonder how many of the soldiers in the CSA were actual slave owners....
edit
grammer
34168
Post by: Amaya
From what I understand hardly any. There were probably several times more slaves forced into fighting than actual slave owners fighting.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
Having been born and lived in the South for my whole life, I have to say, the majority of people I know that fly the confederate flag are not racists or white-supremacists, just good-ole-fashioned rednecks. Unless you happen to be a deer or six pack of cheap beer, they're harmless.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
 Jihadin wrote:I wonder how many of the soldiers in the CSA were actual slave owners....
edit
grammer
War wasnt much different then then it is now: poor folks fighting and dying to the benefit of the rich and elite.
Not to mention I wonder how many who weren't would have choosen to be so if gven the opportunity?
They knew what they were fighting to support even if they didnt have slaves themselves.
50446
Post by: Piston Honda
Jihadin wrote:I wonder how many of the soldiers in the CSA were actual slave owners....
edit
grammer
Very few.
Most southerners could barely afford shoes or not at all. Purchasing a slave would be out of the question.
Like the North, there were ways to avoid getting drafted, you could pay someone to take your place which was looked down upon by people in the North and South but they still did it, I'm not sure what the price was in the South, but in the North it was 300 bucks.
If you owned 20 or more slaved you could dodge the draft, rail road worker, river boat operator, black smith or any skilled job important to the war effort.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Piston Honda wrote:
If you owned 20 or more slaves you could dodge the draft
That is pretty much still true today isnt it (in principle)?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
War wasnt much different then then it is now: poor folks fighting and dying to the benefit of the rich and elite.
I've met all types while in the service
50446
Post by: Piston Honda
 CT GAMER wrote:Piston Honda wrote:
If you owned 20 or more slaves you could dodge the draft
That is pretty much still true today isnt it (in principle)?
Or you could pull a Pat Robertson and have your daddy (a politician) pull some stringers for you to avoid war. But only to brag how you were a combat marine many years later while trying to run for President. 
34168
Post by: Amaya
I love that absolutely BS claim that only the poor and minorities go fight and die.
Newsflash for y'all, the infantry predominantly white, and the various special forces communities are even more white. The percentage of whites in the infantry is higher than the national population average.
There are people with Bachelor's Degrees that enlist. There are people from rich families that enlist.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
 Amaya wrote:Yes, it was over State's Rights. That doesn't change the fact the Confederates were fighting to keep their slaves as well.
I never claimed otherwise.
That sill does not make “The Flag” Evil. The fact that no one is willing to stand up and tell everyone what it really stood for, The Right For States To Govern Themselves. Every time I bring up that the Civil War was over States Rights I end up becoming Vilified for defending Southern Slavery.
Even General Robert E. Lee said that Slavery was not what he was fighting for. Lincoln also said if he could End the war without freeing a single save he would have taken it. General Sherman [One of my Military Heroes] was a Racist and did not see the need to free the Slaves.
They chose to do so not because it was the right morel thing to do, but it was the right Political and Strategic thing to do.
Personally I don’t think we do enough here in the US to stop Slavery in the world currently. I personally think we aught to take the US Special Forces go find every Slaver in the world and put a bullet in there head, but that should be for another discussion.
I should point out one thing I do Believe EVERYONE IS RACIST on some level, I don’t care who you are, including my self, I just acknowledge that I am and try not to be. Any one who tells you he is not is lying either to you or himself.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Will they also rename the car - "General Grant"?
Stupid move, that's all I can say on this. And I'm usually in favour of harsher enforcement against offensive symbols! The irony that you guys could still wave SS standards and swastika banners on the streets without the cops crashing down on you, yet the Confederacy flag is removed from this iconic car due to political correctness hurts my brain.
rubiksnoob wrote:Having been born and lived in the South for my whole life, I have to say, the majority of people I know that fly the confederate flag are not racists or white-supremacists, just good-ole-fashioned rednecks. Unless you happen to be a deer or six pack of cheap beer, they're harmless.
This is what I'd expect from the average owner of such a flag, too. Then again, I'm a foreigner.
34168
Post by: Amaya
 Anpu42 wrote: Amaya wrote:Yes, it was over State's Rights. That doesn't change the fact the Confederates were fighting to keep their slaves as well.
I never claimed otherwise.
That sill does not make “The Flag” Evil. The fact that no one is willing to stand up and tell everyone what it really stood for, The Right For States To Govern Themselves. Every time I bring up that the Civil War was over States Rights I end up becoming Vilified for defending Southern Slavery.
Even General Robert E. Lee said that Slavery was not what he was fighting for. Lincoln also said if he could End the war without freeing a single save he would have taken it. General Sherman [One of my Military Heroes] was a Racist and did not see the need to free the Slaves.
They chose to do so not because it was the right morel thing to do, but it was the right Political and Strategic thing to do.
Personally I don’t think we do enough here in the US to stop Slavery in the world currently. I personally think we aught to take the US Special Forces go find every Slaver in the world and put a bullet in there head, but that should be for another discussion.
I should point out one thing I do Believe EVERYONE IS RACIST on some level, I don’t care who you are, including my self, I just acknowledge that I am and try not to be. Any one who tells you he is not is lying either to you or himself.
How you can be racist if you don't even think races exist? You can try and make twisted arguments to defend the flag. I can use those same arguments to defend the Nazi Swastika.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Their right to own slaves. That's all it was about. The ownership of people, who were used like animals in a brutal and inhuman industry of evil. The people who controlled the Southern states were scared that the Northern states would put a stop to it; scared because their economy was based around it.
http://www.thehypertexts.com/What%20caused%20the%20Civil%20War%20Slavery.htm
45703
Post by: Lynata
Amaya wrote:The percentage of whites in the infantry is higher than the national population average.
I'm not sure on current numbers, but I know that this wasn't the case during the Vietnam War.
Amaya wrote:How you can be racist if you don't even think races exist?
The latter is what his logic tells him, the former is how society raised him?
You know, you can feel something first, even though in the next moment you may be ashamed of yourself for doing so. I think that is what he's trying to express, and I think I understand it.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Amaya wrote:I love that absolutely BS claim that only the poor and minorities go fight and die.
Newsflash for y'all, the infantry predominantly white, and the various special forces communities are even more white. The percentage of whites in the infantry is higher than the national population average.
I didnt see anyone here mention race as a pecursor to service?
34168
Post by: Amaya
I disagree. You can dislike aspects or the entirety of different cultures and be misconstrued as a racist though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: CT GAMER wrote: Amaya wrote:I love that absolutely BS claim that only the poor and minorities go fight and die.
Newsflash for y'all, the infantry predominantly white, and the various special forces communities are even more white. The percentage of whites in the infantry is higher than the national population average.
I didnt see anyone here mention race as a pecursor to service?
A higher percentage of the poor in America are minorities. Prior to the Gulf War it was suggested that minorities (particularly blacks) were being sent to go die which is a blatant lie.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Amaya wrote:I love that absolutely BS claim that only the poor and minorities go fight and die.
He didn't say that only they do. But historically a larger percentage of poor people go into the military, due to lack of other economic opportunities. They also tend to make up the bulk of the grunts, dying in the trenches, as opposed to wealthier folks who make up a higher percentage of the officers and leadership.
5470
Post by: sebster
Jihadin wrote:It was a battle standard. It got the negative press when the hate groups took it up.
That only makes sense if we assume 'hate groups' means the Confederacy.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Amaya wrote:I disagree. You can dislike aspects or the entirety of different cultures and be misconstrued as a racist though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote: Amaya wrote:I love that absolutely BS claim that only the poor and minorities go fight and die.
Newsflash for y'all, the infantry predominantly white, and the various special forces communities are even more white. The percentage of whites in the infantry is higher than the national population average.
I didnt see anyone here mention race as a pecursor to service?
A higher percentage of the poor in America are minorities. Prior to the Gulf War it was suggested that minorities (particularly blacks) were being sent to go die which is a blatant lie.
So you made an unfounded assumption that when i stated the poor serve that I was referring to non-whites.
I never said that, nor was it my point. That is on you.
Very telling...
45703
Post by: Lynata
Amaya wrote:A higher percentage of the poor in America are minorities. Prior to the Gulf War it was suggested that minorities (particularly blacks) were being sent to go die which is a blatant lie.
Well, during the Vietnam War ...
Percentage of black people in the populace: 11%
Ratio of black soldiers in the infantry: 12.6%
Ratio of black soldiers amongst combat casualties: 14.9%
Small but noticeable difference. The recruitment is probably more an economical thing, because poor people were more likely to join up. Yet the casualty ratio is interesting.
34168
Post by: Amaya
 Mannahnin wrote: Amaya wrote:I love that absolutely BS claim that only the poor and minorities go fight and die.
He didn't say that only they do. But historically a larger percentage of poor people go into the military, due to lack of other economic opportunities. They also tend to make up the bulk of the grunts, dying in the trenches, as opposed to wealthier folks who make up a higher percentage of the officers and leadership.
I don't know if there is data on economic backgrounds of those serving in particular MOSs but I think this assertion would be proven incorrect. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Lynata wrote:Amaya wrote:A higher percentage of the poor in America are minorities. Prior to the Gulf War it was suggested that minorities (particularly blacks) were being sent to go die which is a blatant lie.
Well, during the Vietnam War ...
Percentage of black people in the populace: 11%
Ratio of black soldiers in the infantry: 12.6%
Ratio of black soldiers amongst combat casualties: 14.9%
Small but noticeable difference. The recruitment is probably more an economical thing, because poor people were more likely to join up. Yet the casualty ratio is interesting.
This was a result of the draft. Look at the numbers for the Gulf War and War on Terror if they're available.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Amaya wrote:This was a result of the draft. Look at the numbers for the Gulf War and War on Terror if they're available.
What was a result of the draft? That black people are more likely to die on the front lines?
I'm not argueing that it got better.
5470
Post by: sebster
Grey Templar wrote:Edit: The Confederate Flag was not a symbol of hate. It was a symbol of freedom.
The problem, fundamentally, is that what you've written there is complete and utter bunk. There is nothing redeeming about the Confederacy or their rebellion. It was not a war of freedom, but a war undertaken to protect their ability to keep black people enslaved.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
What war are we focusing on in this debate portion? Vietnam or OIF/OEF?
34168
Post by: Amaya
Lynata wrote:Amaya wrote:This was a result of the draft. Look at the numbers for the Gulf War and War on Terror if they're available.
What was a result of the draft? That black people are more likely to die on the front lines?
I'm not argueing that it got better.
Blacks do not typically volunteer to serve in the infantry as they are joining the military typically for economic reasons and not out of the desire to see combat. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:What war are we focusing on in this debate portion? Vietnam or OIF/OEF?
It should be OIF/OEF Automatically Appended Next Post: I can't find anything more recent than a 1997 report on it right now.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Agreed. OIF/OEF needs to be the focus. Bringing up the past as an example doesn't correlate with today military.
edit
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers
This is a bit current
45703
Post by: Lynata
Amaya wrote:Blacks do not typically volunteer to serve in the infantry as they are joining the military typically for economic reasons and not out of the desire to see combat.
Ah, so you're saying that by this draft, the (white) officers just assigned them to the infantry, and that this is why there was a higher percentage than respective to the population? 
[edit]
Jihadin wrote:Agreed. OIF/OEF needs to be the focus. Bringing up the past as an example doesn't correlate with today military.
My bad, I just saw the "Prior to the Gulf War it was suggested that minorities (particularly blacks) were being sent to go die which is a blatant lie" line and thought that was worth talking about, considering the data.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
The concept of the "poverty draft" is well documented, studied and debated.
The biggest opponents to it are The Heritage Foundation. Umm, yeah...
According to a 2007 Associated Press analysis, "nearly three-fourths of [U.S. troops] killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Lynata wrote:Amaya wrote:Blacks do not typically volunteer to serve in the infantry as they are joining the military typically for economic reasons and not out of the desire to see combat.
Ah, so you're saying that by this draft, the (white) officers just assigned them to the infantry, and that this is why there was a higher percentage than respective to the population?
[edit]
Jihadin wrote:Agreed. OIF/OEF needs to be the focus. Bringing up the past as an example doesn't correlate with today military.
My bad, I just saw the "Prior to the Gulf War it was suggested that minorities (particularly blacks) were being sent to go die which is a blatant lie" line and thought that was worth talking about, considering the data.
You misinterpreted my post. I meant that it was expected going into the Gulf War that there would be a lot of minority deaths.
Vietnam is an entirely other story and certainly featured a higher black casualty rate. Automatically Appended Next Post: CT GAMER wrote:The concept of the "poverty draft" is well documented, studied and debated.
The biggest opponents to it are The Heritage Foundation. Umm, yeah...
According to a 2007 Associated Press analysis, "nearly three-fourths of [U.S. troops] killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average.
Where is the raw data for this? All I can find is a racial, gender, rank, and age breakdown.
5470
Post by: sebster
It was over the concern slave holding states had that the Federal Government was sooner or later going to tell them they couldn't keep people enslaved anymore. The US Government was telling the States what they had to do.
It's a myth that the slave holding states weren't trying to tell the Northern states what to do. Ever heard of the Fugitive Slaves act of 1850? That was a lovely piece of law passed by the Federal Government that said slaves who had escaped into free states had to be returned. It was the slave states using Federal power to tell the free states what they could do. In fact, the South had long dominated Federal politics, and used that dominance to dictate policy on all kinds of matters, not least of which was slavery. It was only with the North growing beyond the South that the South began to fear its position of power, and from there its ability to own slaves. I bet you if you asked any one under the age of 30 what the Civil War was over, there answer would be Slavery and they would only be partly right. This in the since that the State Right they were fighting over was Slavery. If you told them that part they would look at you like you had no idea what you were talking about.
Basically there's three stages to learning about the causes of the Civil War. There's the first, simple stage, where you say 'it was over slavery' and that's it. Then there's the second stage where you say 'actually it was more complicated than that'. Then there's the third stage where you realise 'but ultimately everything led back to slavery'. As far as the General Lee losing its Flag, they might as well name it the Mcullen and put the Union Flag on it and change the site of the Dukes to Ohio.
 They should call it the Dukes of the Upper West Side. It could be Prius, and have the flag of the UN on it. And they could drive at reasonable speeds through heavily trafficked areas, while aiding local police authorities in the issues they have with local parking enforcement and restaurants exceeding their properly designated al fresco areas.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Yeah, I already mentioned the heritage foundation a few posts prior. About as biased a source as you can find and heavily refuted on all fronts...
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Lynata wrote:Amaya wrote:The percentage of whites in the infantry is higher than the national population average.
I'm not sure on current numbers, but I know that this wasn't the case during the Vietnam War.
Amaya wrote:How you can be racist if you don't even think races exist?
The latter is what his logic tells him, the former is how society raised him?
You know, you can feel something first, even though in the next moment you may be ashamed of yourself for doing so. I think that is what he's trying to express, and I think I understand it.
That is pretty much it.
My Grandfather was a Racist and he admitted it. I think he believed in segregation more than he was superior, at least that’s what I want to believe. He was also a conservative, which is what influenced me more than most things. My dad is also somewhat.
I also feel that most things like this whole General Lee thing is Stupid. I don’t know of a single person who watch the show who look at the General Lee and though “What a Racist thing” or even thought about slavery as a good thing. We watched it for two things, car chases, Roscoe, Flash, Daisy Dukes and Arrows with Dynamite taped to them, it there was a good story that made it even better.
5470
Post by: sebster
 rubiksnoob wrote:Having been born and lived in the South for my whole life, I have to say, the majority of people I know that fly the confederate flag are not racists or white-supremacists, just good-ole-fashioned rednecks. Unless you happen to be a deer or six pack of cheap beer, they're harmless.
I think we need to recognise the difference in motivation between 'feth you I do what I want' and 'white people are the master race'.
34168
Post by: Amaya
CT GAMER wrote:
Yeah, I already mentioned the heritage foundation a few posts prior. About as biased a source as you can find and heavily refuted on all fronts...
Where's your raw data though? I have an extremely hard time believing it. I'm pretty sure Jihadin and AustonT were both army infantry...surely they can say who they served with?
5470
Post by: sebster
Jihadin wrote:I wonder how many of the soldiers in the CSA were actual slave owners....
edit
grammer
Not many. But that is quite misleading. Many aspired one day to become wealthy enough to own slaves. Others feared change to the social order (afraid of what would happen when the slaves were free, and afraid of what their place was if black people were no longer beneath them). And many, of course, fought out of loyalty to their state.
But why a poor, powerless men join a war has little to do with why rich, powerful men start those wars.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/military-recruitment-2010/
Found one with deaths but I disregarded it when I notice Allah Ackbar bar on top the page.
5470
Post by: sebster
CT GAMER wrote:Yeah, I already mentioned the heritage foundation a few posts prior. About as biased a source as you can find and heavily refuted on all fronts...
I think there should be an internet rule that posting a Heritage Foundation link means you lose.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Amaya wrote:http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf
/thread
If only it was that simple.
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=3412
Military Mirrors Working Class America
New York Times
March 30, 2003
Military Mirrors Working-Class America
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and STEVEN A. HOLMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/international/worldspecial/30DEMO.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
As the United States engages in its first major land war in a decade,
the soldiers, sailors, pilots and others who are risking, and now
giving, their lives in Iraq represent a slice of a broad swath of
American society ? but by no means all of it.
***** This is a long article filled with demographic information
comparing the current socio-economic makeup of the US military
compared to earlier periods. It highlights the demographics of the
dead in the current Iraq war (as of the 2003 date of the article) and
makes the assumption that the forces in Iraq reflect the military as a
whole.
-------------------------------------------------
The Iraq War
A snapshot of elements in the demographic profile of the modern U.S. military.
***** This site offers several statistical tables on the demographics
of officers and enlisted personnel.
-------------------------------------------------
http://middleeastinfo.org/article3673.html
Selective service? Demographics of Iraq deaths
Nov. 21, 2003, 10:04PM
By BILL BISHOP (Houston Chronicle)
The U.S. military doesn't publish data on recruits' hometowns. But
several months ago, Robert Cushing, a statistical consultant and a
retired University of Texas sociologist, began tracking the home
counties of those who died in Iraq. Cushing found dramatic differences
in casualty rates between urban and rural areas: The smaller the
county's population, the higher the death rate.
In the politically polarized America of today, there are unmistakably
two planets. There's the planet that watches the war on television and
debates the merits of an $87 billion appropriation, and then there's
the planet that sends its kids to Afghanistan and Iraq -- the planet
of places like Coahoma.
***** This article presents some interesting statistics about the
geographic dimensions of the demographics of those killed in Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030406-casualties01.htm
Boston Globe April 06, 2003
They leave lost hopes, but a duty fulfilled
Joined by loyalty and fate, the stories of American war dead from the
Iraqi campaign paint a picture that is as varied as America itself.
They also offer a snapshot of who fights on the front lines of
America's wars and who, thus far, has made the ultimate sacrifice.
***** This article provides some demographic statistics about the
forces serving in Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
Casualties in Iraq
***** Look for demographic reports under the Sources heading in the
right hand navigation column.
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.sun-times.com/special_sections/iraq/married.html
Who's really fighting the war
The buildup of American forces in the Gulf could reach 250,000,
roughly one-fifth of the U.S. military. Forces on active duty are
comprised of mostly young men and women, half of whom are between 17
and 24 years old. This is a closer look at who's on enlisted duty.
Representing diversity
There is a higher proportion on blacks in the military than in the
general population of the same ages.
Younger, and married
Nearly half of the enlisted armed forces ages 18 to 44 are married. A
higher portion of men and women are married at a younger age compared
with the civilian population.
***** The graphs in this article provide added information.
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.mfrc-dodqol.org/stat.cfm
Demographics Reports
2002 Demographics Profile of the Military Community
This Demographics Report presents a synthesis of demographic
information describing military members and families in the military
community. This annual report is designed as a reference tool for
professionals who develop policy or deliver programs and services to
military members and families in the Armed Forces.
***** This Web site provides extensive demographic information to help
you explore the socio-economic status of military members and their
families.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Seriously? There is evidence that blacks are underrepresented in the infantry (the ones most likely to get killed) while whites are over represented and there is no evidence other than your claim (with no data) that supports that the poor are over represented in the military.
Not to put them on the spot, but I'm pretty sure AustonT and Jihadin can provide their own experiences that support that.
Edit: Yes blacks are over represented in the military as a whole, but they are primarily POGs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Half those links are broken and the other half provide no evidence that the poor are being over represented as casualties.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Amaya wrote:You misinterpreted my post. I meant that it was expected going into the Gulf War that there would be a lot of minority deaths.
Oooooh. Gotcha. Sorry! 
Amaya wrote:Seriously? There is evidence that blacks are underrepresented in the infantry (the ones most likely to get killed) while whites are over represented and there is no evidence other than your claim (with no data) that supports that the poor are over represented in the military.
Whilst googling for those Vietnam numbers I noticed a number of articles talking about the number of black recruits has been dropping heavily over the past two decades - guess that'd explain their current level of representation.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Majorty of a infantry company is white. I've only seen single digit numbers in them. Most blacks go into logistical MOS's. You can't really though seperate race by combat deaths due to MOS's. Its what the unit mission is. There is no front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan. Basically everyone had an equal oppurtunity to be opted out. The only race that suffered the most kills were the middle eastern race.
29408
Post by: Melissia
While I have no personal emotional connection, it seems pointless to remove the flag from it. That's pretty much the thing that identified it.
34894
Post by: jordanis
LoneLictor wrote:
99.9% of people with Confederate Flags are racist nutjobs. The other 0.01% are usually just people who don't know what the flag symbolizes.
That bein' said and all, it's an important part of the show, so I'm conflicted about this.
the confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, its symbol is to stand up to oppression, the north was oppressing the south, and they said enough! i fly a confederate flag, am i a horrible person? no, am i a racist nutjob? not in the slightest.
i think you have your pie chart wrong, 99% of people who fly the Confederate flag view it the way i do, with 1 % being racist nutjobs who dont know what the flag symbolizes, unfortunately, schools teach, incorrectly, that the civil war started over slavery, but in reality, that was a minor issue of the war, and before you rebuttal, go do some homework, you will learn that i am correct.
i am highly offended when people accuse me of being a racist because they do not understand the real message of the flag, its the same message as the tea parties "dont tread on me"
18277
Post by: Khornholio
Amaya wrote:Why should the Confederate flag be acceptable and the Nazi one not? They're both equally hateful symbols even if you claim them to be "battle standards".
Ask a Palestinian about the Israeli flag.
It's subjective. There is "Hitler's Jeans' - a Jean store in Seoul with Hitler saluting to the Nazi flag on the sign. Not too mention the various 'uniform bars' in Korea and Japan where you can dress up in WWII uniforms and drink Jinro.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Jihadin wrote:It was a battle standard. It got the negative press when they fired on Fort Sumter.
Fixed your typo. 
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Yes, it was over State's Rights. That doesn't change the fact the Confederates were fighting to keep their slaves as well.
It was over State's rights. However the driving force behind the issue of "state's rights" vs. "federal rights" was slavery.
After all the states started seceding when Lincoln was elected, because he was one of those religious freaks who believed in abolition. Interesting that the Southern states didn't have a problem using federal power to extend the ability to recapture slaves into Northern states prior to the War.
I had family on both sides as well, even found a "group" grave marker where one fell in Tennessee. When I was younger I had Stars and Bars bandannas because I was a teenager about Southern Pride and all the yankees coming to Texas at the time. Later I started thinking about it and looking around at who was left and waiving the flag around. It was just kooks and crackers. I grew up.
Remember boys: Rich Man's War! Poor Man's Fight!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:Piston Honda wrote:
If you owned 20 or more slaves you could dodge the draft
That is pretty much still true today isnt it (in principle)?
It was when the draft was on. College was the big ticket out, as was serving in guard units which weren't sent out. Its one reason so many kids went to college.
Text removed.
Reds8n
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:What war are we focusing on in this debate portion? Vietnam or OIF/OEF?
The ware against static cling!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jordanis wrote: LoneLictor wrote:
99.9% of people with Confederate Flags are racist nutjobs. The other 0.01% are usually just people who don't know what the flag symbolizes.
That bein' said and all, it's an important part of the show, so I'm conflicted about this.
the confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, its symbol is to stand up to oppression, the north was oppressing the south, and they said enough! i fly a confederate flag, am i a horrible person? no, am i a racist nutjob? not in the slightest.
i think you have your pie chart wrong, 99% of people who fly the Confederate flag view it the way i do, with 1 % being racist nutjobs who dont know what the flag symbolizes, unfortunately, schools teach, incorrectly, that the civil war started over slavery, but in reality, that was a minor issue of the war, and before you rebuttal, go do some homework, you will learn that i am correct.
i am highly offended when people accuse me of being a racist because they do not understand the real message of the flag, its the same message as the tea parties "dont tread on me"
Wait, judging by your location, you fly the Stars and Bars in California? 
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Khornholio wrote: Amaya wrote:Why should the Confederate flag be acceptable and the Nazi one not? They're both equally hateful symbols even if you claim them to be "battle standards".
Ask a Palestinian about the Israeli flag.
It's subjective. There is "Hitler's Jeans' - a Jean store in Seoul with Hitler saluting to the Nazi flag on the sign. Not too mention the various 'uniform bars' in Korea and Japan where you can dress up in WWII uniforms and drink Jinro.
Actually if you had Hitler and Stalin dancing in pink TuTus I'd buy that for a dollar.
5531
Post by: Leigen_Zero
 SoloFalcon1138 wrote: LoneLictor wrote:
99.9% of people with Confederate Flags are racist nutjobs. The other 0.01% are usually just people who don't know what the flag symbolizes.
That bein' said and all, it's an important part of the show, so I'm conflicted about this.
Actually, you are ignoring the small number of people who show it as a symbol of heritage. I was a reenactor for over 8 years, and I still fight against people who are ignorant of the meaning of the flag and abuse its history for their own ignorant means.
I'd say its about 4% are history buffs/reenactors, 46% are misuse it for racist means, and 46% display their ignorance of its history. The last two categories are interchangeable, of course...
And Pantera fans, which pretty much covers the 4% you missed out in your current figures (although there is a little bit of bleed-through into the latter two categories)
29408
Post by: Melissia
jordanis wrote:the confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, its symbol is to stand up to oppression
Also for enslaving black people, because the best way to "stand up to oppression" is by oppressing others to the point of considering them not human beings due to the color of their skin! IF that was true, then the confederation would have respected states rights. It didn't, and neither did any of the states that joined it. Really, the "states rights" thing is just a convenient lie that people try to tell themselves to feel better about their ancestors or whatever. But frankly, given how many of my own LIVING family I dislike (at least 15%), I'm fully willing to admit that my ancestors also probably had some donkey-caves too.
1206
Post by: Easy E
The Civil War was about State's Rights IF you are a Southern Apologist.
Thanks Shelby Foote and Ken Burns for making such a heinous idea mainstream.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Easy E wrote:The Civil War was about State's Rights IF you are a Southern Apologist.
Thanks Shelby Foote and Ken Burns for making such a heinous idea mainstream.
Thats not a hothouse theory, thats what the states cited when they seceded.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Anpu42 wrote:The Civil was over States Rights. The US Government was telling the States what they had to do. In response many States succeed from the Union, basically telling the Federal Government to “Go to Blazes”. The Confederate Flag was the flag they chose. It is a part of our history and should not be outlawed by those who are ignorant of the Politics of the Times.
I bet you if you asked any one under the age of 30 what the Civil War was over, there answer would be Slavery and they would only be partly right. This in the since that the State Right they were fighting over was Slavery. If you told them that part they would look at you like you had no idea what you were talking about.
Which state rights? Oh right the slavery ones. The Civil War was about slavery. The 'states right' argument is basically the exact same argument because all the rights in question revolved around the right to hold slaves and to take them from one state to another. Except when people bring up that stupid Tariff argument. You know, the tariff pass in 1829 that was repelled by democratic congress' by 1850? Arguing that the Civil War was about States Rights is an obfuscation of the truth and an attempt to play the South as having a more sympathetic cause than it really had. There's abundant documentation about the ideology behind the Civil War and its pretty much pure racism and slavery. States rights was just the key word that been invented in the last 100 years to try and justify (or make more acceptable) the Confederacy's actions.
The South had spent nearly 30 years prior to the Civil War dominating Federal politics. Almost every term, their either controlled Congress or the White House aided by the collapse of the Whigs and the long formation of a new rival party. They lost in 1860 and threw a hissy fit that cost millions of lives. EDIT: The Fugitive Slave Law was one of the most invasive on States Rights at the time, and was passed by a Democratic Congress who bullied a Whig president into signing off on it. If any side can be pointed at for violating state's rights its the south!
That said, the flag is just a flag. Not to mention iconic to one of the most bad ass cars ever.
Amaya wrote:From what I understand hardly any. There were probably several times more slaves forced into fighting than actual slave owners fighting.
This.
Read my Dakkanauts:
Most plantations were owner-operated and the planters themselves often worked in the fields. Of the total southern white population of 8,099,760 in 1860, only 384,000 owned slaves. Of these, 10,780 owned fifty or more. It was calculated that about 88 per cent of America's slave-owners owned twenty slaves or less.
1860 Census Data:
Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).
Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)
For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.
On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.
Confederate enlistment data is incomplete because many records were lost when the South collapsed, but it is possible to estimate, very loosely, the number of men in the Confederate army who came from slave-holding families. For this discussion, click here.
Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.
Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia
Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%
In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.
The vast majority of slave owners in the South only owned between 10 and 5. And contrary to common imagery, most slave owners were actually poor as dirt by contemporary standards. As the above data states, most of their wealth was actually in slaves. No one uses slaves to buy themselves a sports carriage. Very few southern plantations were as splendid as those we sometimes see today. Most of those still standing were actually built during Reconstruction. Share cropping actually produced higher profits than slavery. Go figure.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yes, and most despots claim they're working for the good of the people, too. But neither one is telling the truth.
1206
Post by: Easy E
 Frazzled wrote: Easy E wrote:The Civil War was about State's Rights IF you are a Southern Apologist.
Thanks Shelby Foote and Ken Burns for making such a heinous idea mainstream.
Thats not a hothouse theory, thats what the states cited when they seceded.
State's Rights over what potential laws... Slavery related laws.
Plus, after the succession, it's not like the South did much to ensure "State's Rights" in the Confederacy.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Its also not what the sates cited (technically). They cited the federal government's tyranny and their freedom to own slaves. It really is all about slavery. Calling it state's rights is an attempt to circumvent the real issue.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Melissia wrote:Yes, and most despots claim they're working for the good of the people, too. But neither one is telling the truth.
It was the truth. It was about state's right. Howver the leading driver and state's right they were talking about what their ability to have slaves. So yes, at its bone it was about slavery and the whole agricultural culture around that. We have to remember people were killing each other in Kansas ( and a lesser extent Missouri) over slavery. State's rights had come up many times, but slavery was the issue that started the killing. In the end it took a holy war to free a people.
25990
Post by: Chongara
I saw let 'em keep their slavery flag on their toys. When people own stuff like that it makes that much easier to determine who I don't want to interact with.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Chongara wrote:I saw let 'em keep their slavery flag on their toys. When people own stuff like that it makes that much easier to determine who I don't want to interact with.
No one's asking why they are selling Dukes of Hazzard toys...Its been a few decades. And it was just a midless popcorn little show. Nothing offensive to see here, unless your name is Cooter and you believe their disparagement of Cooter was wrong of course. Wasn't there a giant bloodhound in the show too?
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Frazzled wrote: Chongara wrote:I saw let 'em keep their slavery flag on their toys. When people own stuff like that it makes that much easier to determine who I don't want to interact with.
No one's asking why they are selling Dukes of Hazzard toys...Its been a few decades. And it was just a midless popcorn little show. Nothing offensive to see here, unless your name is Cooter and you believe their disparagement of Cooter was wrong of course. Wasn't there a giant bloodhound in the show too?
You forgot slow and lazy, yes his name was Flash.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Some Historical inclined posters may be able to pove me wrong. But wasnt the flag actually a flag of a small regiment near the end of the war?
514
Post by: Orlanth
The Confederate flag is a symbol of a seperateist movement, a short lived nation state and the historical culture of the southern states of the USA that attempted to seceed in 1861.
Then as now not everyone involved would have a particular race agenda, and it is blanket revisionism to suggest that the Union states were fighting for equal rights or a better moral code. This was the 19th century, not the 21st.
I would find it ill indeed if people from the southern states could not celebrate their history and culture by flying the Confederate flag, its not like they are at war with anyone about it. Two write it off as racism is revisionism, ignorance and/or PC propaganda.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
hotsauceman1 wrote:Some Historical inclined posters may be able to pove me wrong. But wasnt the flag actually a flag of a small regiment near the end of the war?
The flag and variants of it were very common as regimental standards. I don't think any particular design was ever actually accepted by the Confederacy, and there were upwards of three dozen variants in use.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well in the defense of others posting here I'll note, when I was younger there were lots of rebel flags. It was a symbol of the South. That seems to have fallen away and the flag has been taken over more and more by KKK types. As the old underpinnings of the flag has fallen away its beomce more and more associated with that.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Frazzled wrote:Well in the defense of others posting here I'll note, when I was younger there were lots of rebel flags. It was a symbol of the South. That seems to have fallen away and the flag has been taken over more and more by KKK types. As the old underpinnings of the flag has fallen away its beomce more and more associated with that.
Its a shame when that happens.
The St Georges flag looked like it was going the same way, to the extent that fethwit councils would ban it as a 'racist symbol'. That dogma has largely been stomped on though.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Wait, who tries to ban the Saint George cross? Or is the flag something different?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Mention that to frazz a few post back
18698
Post by: kronk
Frazzled wrote:Well in the defense of others posting here I'll note, when I was younger there were lots of rebel flags. It was a symbol of the South. That seems to have fallen away and the flag has been taken over more and more by KKK types. As the old underpinnings of the flag has fallen away its beomce more and more associated with that.
Pretty much this. There's a truck with a huge trailer that drives up and down Crystal Beach, TX on Bolivar Peninsula on the weekends that sells flags. Most are crude, some are simple pirate flags, some pro-pot flags, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and UT flags, and various flags with the Confederate/Rebel flag on them. Judging by the flags I see people flying, the Confederate Flag (or some derivative there-of) seems to be the most popular. Judging by the monster trucks, women dipping snuff, bud light cans, and other redneck stereotypes I've seen of the people with the "rebel flags", I'd say that most were ignorant hicks/rednecks/morons.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Nutty councils, mostly in the early years of the last decade, some went as far as to ban flying the Union Flag. This was at memorials or public places, nothing to stop you doing such on your own land.
There was still until recently a belief that if you flew the Union flag or especially the English flag you were a right wing extremist.
Fortunately this died when we got good at certain sports again. Especially around the time England won the Rugby world cup.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
My wife has a rebel flag on my jeep. I find it highly amusing when people see me in it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Jihadin wrote:My wife has a rebel flag on my jeep. I find it highly amusing when people see me in it.
If anyone bugs you, fake a British accent and tell them its the Union Jack. They'll never know. Fake false umbrage and challenge them to fitiscuffs to protect the honor of The Queen.
27391
Post by: purplefood
 Orlanth wrote:Nutty councils, mostly in the early years of the last decade, some went as far as to ban flying the Union Flag. This was at memorials or public places, nothing to stop you doing such on your own land.
There was still until recently a belief that if you flew the Union flag or especially the English flag you were a right wing extremist.
Fortunately this died when we got good at certain sports again. Especially around the time England won the Rugby world cup.
I don't see the problem with flying your own country's flag. Flying the flag of a rebel movement that got defeated is a bit different...
37231
Post by: d-usa
I was visiting my folks in Indiana this spring and we went to a county fair. There were quite a few places selling confederate flags there.
I told him that my history could be a bit off here, but I don't remember Indiana leaving the union and it seems a bit north for "southern pride".
He told me it was just redneck racist asshatery up there to own one. Automatically Appended Next Post:  purplefood wrote: Orlanth wrote:Nutty councils, mostly in the early years of the last decade, some went as far as to ban flying the Union Flag. This was at memorials or public places, nothing to stop you doing such on your own land.
There was still until recently a belief that if you flew the Union flag or especially the English flag you were a right wing extremist.
Fortunately this died when we got good at certain sports again. Especially around the time England won the Rugby world cup.
I don't see the problem with flying your own country's flag. Flying the flag of a rebel movement that got defeated is a bit different...
I got in trouble before with folks over my German flag, but the sad thing is that the same folks that get angry if you fly the flag of your other home would be the same ones flying the US flag anywhere else.
I do follow the flag code, made sure no flag is taller than the other one, made sure they are flying on the right side. I fly the US one for all holidays, and the German one for German holidays (and always fly the US flag whenever the German one is up).
18080
Post by: Anpu42
I also see that a lot of people who have sense a humor about it. I have a two black friends who are fighting the whole racist thing with humor.
The 1st one is an avid Civil War Reinactor who put on his Confederate Coronel’s uniform and walked into the Confederate camp’s Mess Hall. Almost everyone stood at attention and then when they realized it was him and had a good laugh about it. From what I understand he does this every once in a while get everyone to think about it and have a good laugh.
The 2nd showed me his KKK membership card. He had went online and joined as he put it “To make them look like the fools they are.”
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
I went to a college party at a hick's apartment (way he and his buddies acted, he deserves the title 'hick') and they were flying the Confederate flag in the apartment. We walked through the door and all conversation immediately stopped. Why? Because one of my friends happened to be black. Someone even tossed the "N" word as we left immediately. We hadn't seen the flag until we got inside.
The flag is often seen a representation of racism and hatred, even if not everyone who flies it feels that way. That said, the flag on the General Lee is also part of what the car is, and I feel like it's no longer the actual General Lee without it. I say leave it on the car. I only watched the new movie (didn't hate it), never saw the old shows, but I didn't see any racism at all in the movie-never saw the boys use it as a racist tool, so no harm. If it's used to put down people, it needs to be removed. As do the people supporting racism. I fully support the castration of all racists everywhere.
5534
Post by: dogma
Orlanth wrote:
I would find it ill indeed if people from the southern states could not celebrate their history and culture by flying the Confederate flag, its not like they are at war with anyone about it. Two write it off as racism is revisionism, ignorance and/or PC propaganda.
They're free to celebrate it, but that doesn't mean they can't be mocked for it, or looked at dubiously in public. The same is true of any symbol, it just so happens that the Confederate Flag has a lot of baggage thanks to not only the civil war, the civil rights movement, and modern racism; so it happens to be subject to the above more frequently than most similar articles.
There is also the point that the central issue of the civil war was slavery, and the defense of that "right" is the primary reason that the confederate flag exists. There are other cultural elements as well, but that's the central one.
Also while I know you really love that whole " PC propaganda" thing, its really just a nonsense beat stick. You could have stopped at revisionism and ignorance while making the same point, and come off as much more sensible.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
 timetowaste85 wrote: The flag is often seen a representation of racism and hatred, even if not everyone who flies it feels that way. That said, the flag on the General Lee is also part of what the car is, and I feel like it's no longer the actual General Lee without it. I say leave it on the car. I only watched the new movie (didn't hate it), never saw the old shows, but I didn't see any racism at all in the movie-never saw the boys use it as a racist tool, so no harm. If it's used to put down people, it needs to be removed. As do the people supporting racism. I fully support the castration of all racists everywhere.
Not just the flag, but he whole Racist/ PC thing has gotten out of hand. I admit my Fathers side of the family could turn into a Jeff Foxworthy special. I spent the last family reunion saying “No I have had enough Fritos and Chili!”
I do have a little Indian blood in my [1/64th Blackfoot], but I am just a poor white guy, trying to survive in a county were it is almost a sin to be one. I don’t speak Spanish, only enough to get into a bar fight. I have even been told “Don’t bother filling out the job application, you are the wrong color. I have told this the some of my black co-workers once and they said is served me right. WTF?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Anpu42 wrote:
The 2nd showed me his KKK membership card. He had went online and joined as he put it “To make them look like the fools they are.”
That just makes me think of a comedy clip that I would never be allowed to post on Dakka.
27391
Post by: purplefood
 d-usa wrote: Anpu42 wrote:
The 2nd showed me his KKK membership card. He had went online and joined as he put it “To make them look like the fools they are.”
That just makes me think of a comedy clip that I would never be allowed to post on Dakka.
Just makes me think of this...
37231
Post by: d-usa
We had a big stink about it in Oklahoma in 1998 I think.
At our State Capitol there is a plaza with a lot of flag poles on it. Two giant ones that used to fly the Oklahoma flag and the US flag, and then maybe 11 smaller ones that had every flag that was ever flown over Oklahoma.
One of those was of course the Stars & Bars. There was lots of fighting back and forth about that flag being there with one side arguing that since it is a historical exhibit it should stay with all the other flags (I actually agreed with that) and the other side saying that it is a symbol of slavery and should be taken down. The flag pole was empty for a couple of years during all this fighting until the Governor at the time had enough and ordered every single flag taken down and just put the current Oklahoma flag on every single pole to put a stop to the fighting.
A few years ago we opened a historical center right next to the capitol and they added a garden where they are again flying all the flags that have flown over the area that is Oklahoma. We got the Spanish, the French, every flag that has ever laid claim to the land that is now Oklahoma. They did add a confederate flag to the mix but I think they made a pretty good compromise.
Instead of the battle flag (stars & bars) they decided to fly the Confederate National Flag instead:
I think that was a good decision and addressed the fears of flying a symbol that is often used by racists and still paying tribute to the fact that units based in the area sided with the Confederacy.
29110
Post by: AustonT
d-usa wrote:We had a big stink about it in Oklahoma in 1998 I think.
At our State Capitol there is a plaza with a lot of flag poles on it. Two giant ones that used to fly the Oklahoma flag and the US flag, and then maybe 11 smaller ones that had every flag that was ever flown over Oklahoma.
One of those was of course the Stars & Bars. There was lots of fighting back and forth about that flag being there with one side arguing that since it is a historical exhibit it should stay with all the other flags (I actually agreed with that) and the other side saying that it is a symbol of slavery and should be taken down. The flag pole was empty for a couple of years during all this fighting until the Governor at the time had enough and ordered every single flag taken down and just put the current Oklahoma flag on every single pole to put a stop to the fighting.
A few years ago we opened a historical center right next to the capitol and they added a garden where they are again flying all the flags that have flown over the area that is Oklahoma. We got the Spanish, the French, every flag that has ever laid claim to the land that is now Oklahoma. They did add a confederate flag to the mix but I think they made a pretty good compromise.
Instead of the battle flag (stars & bars) they decided to fly the Confederate National Flag instead:
I think that was a good decision and addressed the fears of flying a symbol that is often used by racists and still paying tribute to the fact that units based in the area sided with the Confederacy.
just FYI the Stars and Bars IS the Confederate National Flag.
Georgia made a similar decision.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Per wiki there were multiple national flags. The Stars and Bars was a battle flag - with jived with everything I was taught. And only of the Army of Virignia actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
1206
Post by: Easy E
I bet most people don't even realize that flag represents the Confederacy.
Edit: The one in D-USA's post.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Frazz read the first line of "national flags" then scroll down to the pictures.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 AustonT wrote:just FYI the Stars and Bars IS the Confederate National Flag.
Georgia made a similar decision.
Got my terms mixed up, sorry.
I knew I should have just stuck with Battle Flag vs. National Flag.
29110
Post by: AustonT
It's always best to stick to those. If it helps at all the mixup is overwhelmingly popular. The Civil War just happens to be the only American History I'm even vaguely interested in.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Keep telling yourself that. After all, the Republican party is paying people to revise the history books to state exactly that.
Even though they, and you, are just lying to yourselves like a drug addict in denial.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Melissia wrote:Keep telling yourself that. After all, the Republican party is paying people to revise the history books to state exactly that.
Even though they, and you, are just lying to yourselves like a drug addict in denial.
...I bet you don't even get what makes that hilarious. The Republicans, who are supposed to be reviving the fight for states rights are paying people to rewrite history to books to say the Republicans squashed states rights, the South secceeded and then Republicans victoriously crushed the states who wanted states rights. Please go on.
States rights were indeed an issue a cited issue in the seccession of several of the states and has been a cited cause of the Civil War from the day it happened. The only rewrite of history would be to say states rights weren't among the primary causes of the war.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I never denied that.
I deny the blatant lies that claim that slavery wasn't a major issue.
Not that you care, go on, keep ranting, it's amusing in a very sad way.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Melissia wrote: Frazzled wrote:It was the truth. It was about state's right. Howver the leading driver and state's right they were talking about what their ability to have slaves. So yes, at its bone it was about slavery and the whole agricultural culture around that.
We have to remember people were killing each other in Kansas ( and a lesser extent Missouri) over slavery.
State's rights had come up many times, but slavery was the issue that started the killing. In the end it took a holy war to free a people.
Keep telling yourself that. After all, the Republican party is paying people to revise the history books to state exactly that.
Even though they, and you, are just lying to yourselves like a drug addict in denial.
Melissia wrote:I never denied that.
I deny the blatant lies that claim that slavery wasn't a major issue.
Not that you care, go on, keep ranting, it's amusing in a very sad way.
ORLY because that looks like exactly what you said here I have a piece of advise for you: Look at your post. Back to mine. Back to yours NOW BACK TO MINE. Sadly, it isn't mine. But if you stopped trolling and started posting legitimate crap it could LOOK like mine. Look down, back up, where are you? You're scrolling through the thread, finding the ones that your post could look like.
You should stop trolling Mel, you said so yourself.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:I never denied that.
I deny the blatant lies that claim that slavery wasn't a major issue.
Not that you care, go on, keep ranting, it's amusing in a very sad way.
Reported for comparing me to a drug addict especially when my posts noted slavery being the primary "right" being discussed. IN your haste to condemn someone for...something... you overlooked that. I'll help refresh your recollection:
It was the truth. It was about state's right. Howver the leading driver and state's right they were talking about what their ability to have slaves. So yes, at its bone it was about slavery and the whole agricultural culture around that.
We have to remember people were killing each other in Kansas ( and a lesser extent Missouri) over slavery.
State's rights had come up many times, but slavery was the issue that started the killing. In the end it took a holy war to free a people.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Actually she never denied that State's Rights were an issue. It may have been implied, but she's claiming that people are making it out to be purely about State's Rights, which is false, when in fact slavery was a major issue.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Mentality and perception from the 1800's is a bit different compare to today
34168
Post by: Amaya
You can continue down that line of reasoning and apply to it everything. You can even extend that to cultural differences.
29408
Post by: Melissia
You are wrong. Since you are not actually going to bother reading the conversation that was had, I'll help you. It was claimed that slavery wasn't a major issue, but that states rights was the primary reason. It follows, then, that if states rights actually was worth a damn to the confederate states, then they wouldn't have banned states from making slavery illegal-- that would have trampled on states rights. However, they banned states from making slavery illegal. Therefor, the argument that states rights was anything more than a poorly made cover story behind their desire to keep slavery legal is bogus and flawed. Quod erat demonstrandum. I have no doubt that many people cared fervently about states rights; more fool to them. But they abandoned states rights immediately after secession, so it obviously wasn't that important to them compared to slavery. Actions speak louder than words, AustonT.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Wasn't there a bit where a new state was formed that it can choose to be a slave state or not...something that kind of jumped out from high school memories from American History class...
34168
Post by: Amaya
Jihadin wrote:Wasn't there a bit where a new state was formed that it can choose to be a slave state or not...something that kind of jumped out from high school memories from American History class...
Yes, there was.
221
Post by: Frazzled
AustonT wrote:
Frazz read the first line of "national flags" then scroll down to the pictures.
We were taught the Stars and Bars was the specific one referring to the battle flag. If you disagree then it shall be whippy sticks at ten paces sir. Don't forget a second!
29408
Post by: Melissia
In fact, all four of the states that issue formal declarations of causes for their secession identified the threats to slaveholder rights as the primary cause, to add more to my previous argument. Texas, as a black mark against this great state, mentioned slavery something like 20+ times in its declaration. And I quote: We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
[...]
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp
221
Post by: Frazzled
Jihadin wrote:Wasn't there a bit where a new state was formed that it can choose to be a slave state or not...something that kind of jumped out from high school memories from American History class...
Yes. Just prior to the civil war at least one territory was given that option: Kansas. It was flooded by fanatics from both sides, and the killing began. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:In fact, all four of the states that issue formal declarations of causes for their secession identified the threats to slaveholder rights as the primary cause, to add more to my previous argument. Texas, as a black mark against this great state, mentioned slavery something like 20+ times in its declaration.
And I quote:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp
There were more than four states that seceded. Yes, several of them specifically noted slavery and ownership of.
29408
Post by: Melissia
All of them did.
Trying to keep slavery legal was the primary reason for the secession for every single seceding state.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Amend that to trying to keep slavery legal when they thought someone wanted to make it illegal. Prior to the Civil War, the abolitionist movement was rather weak politically at the federal level and free soilers didn't want to make it illegal they just didn't want it spreading to new territories because they falsely assumed all southerners were so blindingly rich that they could buy all the new land and work it with slaves.
The irony is that if the South hadn't seceded, Slavery probably would have remained legal for at as much as another forty or even fifty years in the United States (hell it might have never been made illegal, it would just fall out of use).
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Melissia wrote:All of them did.
Trying to keep slavery legal was the primary reason for the secession for every single seceding state.
Not West Virginia!
121
Post by: Relapse
The South might have been trying to keep slaves, but from the stack of Civil War letters I have from one of my family members that fought in it, the North wasn't as interested in freeing slaves as keeping the Union together.
In one of his letters he talks about a conversation he and some others in his regiment had with Confederate prisoners. He said the Confederates were worried about losing their slaves, but were told the Union army (as a whole) didn't care aboit the slaves, but was in the field to keep the south from seceding.
In another letter he compares blacks to rattlesnakes because, according to him, they would get Union soldiers in trouble by trumping up stories against them to their officers.
From my readings of Civil War history, he was far from unique in his views about blacks. When you look at the context of the times,all he really had to go on were travelers tales until he met his first blacks in less than good circumstances, since he grew up in the back woods of Maine.
For myself, I never met a black person until I was 13 and had moved from Maine. Imagine how much more isolated 1860's U.S. Must have been.
5470
Post by: sebster
Orlanth wrote:The Confederate flag is a symbol of a seperateist movement, a short lived nation state and the historical culture of the southern states of the USA that attempted to seceed in 1861. Then as now not everyone involved would have a particular race agenda, and it is blanket revisionism to suggest that the Union states were fighting for equal rights or a better moral code. This was the 19th century, not the 21st. I would find it ill indeed if people from the southern states could not celebrate their history and culture by flying the Confederate flag, its not like they are at war with anyone about it. Two write it off as racism is revisionism, ignorance and/or PC propaganda.
To ignore the driving forces of that seperatist movement, and ignore the use of that flag in the racial struggles that continued after the Civil War, however, is to choose to be stupid. Now, I'm not in favour of banning the flag or anything like that, but there's no point pretending history didn't happen.
|
|
