Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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!