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.

I may not be American, but the confederate flag only says one thing to me. "Dukes Of Hazzard". nuf said from me.

I am sorry but I see nothing to celebrate. They may have tried to gussy it up with some "states rights" crap but in the end they were fighting to retain the right to keep slavery. Slavery in America was one of the worst, most dispicable things that man has done to man in its entire history and in my mind easily compares with the genocides and mass killings that we have seen and despise in other countries. Killing someone becuase of their race or religion is no worse than enslaving them, beating them, raping their wives, mothers and children, and then eventually killing them. In some ways it is even perhaps less humane. I feel the same way for this as I would feel if someone in Germany proposed 3rd Reich month. Most of the soldiers did not participate in the genocide but they still picked up a weapon to defend its right knowingly or unknowingly. It is not about political correctness it is about honoring someone who defended something abjectly dispicable. Learn from your history don't celebrate it.

Manchu wrote:What you do not understand, what you have no inkling of whatsoever, is what the War means to people living in this place and dealing with this context today.

We're a week or so away from celebrating Anzac day, a hugely important piece of Australian cultural history in which we pretend we and the New Zealanders were sent off to be slaughtered by the Turks. That the Turks lost more troops than anyone else, followed by the British, followed by the French, followed only then by the Anzac forces doesn't seem to matter, because that isn't the myth people want.

And when Confederate History month is announced with no mention of slavery... I know what kind of myth people are trying to create.

It really is not so simple as the politico-moral fable you and others have presented elsewhere.

No, it was a very complicated series of events and beliefs, and really very fascinating. But even complex things have some basic truths, and pretending that a fear that Northern abolitionists would stop slavery wasn't the primary cause of secession is simply wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Well, the British Empire did a LOT of bad stuff - I still think we should acknowledge and celebrate our history regardless. If anything, it brings into sharper focus the bad things, lest we forget - and lets us celebrate the things which are worth celebrating. With that in mind, I see no problem at all in a celebration/remembrance of the Confederacy, as long as it isn't a revison. It's not like they were the Nazis.

Just an outsider's opinion.

When there's no mention of slavery - do you think it's an honest appraisal of the history or a revision?

sebster wrote:

No, it was a very complicated series of events and beliefs, and really very fascinating. But even complex things have some basic truths, and pretending that a fear that Northern abolitionists would stop slavery wasn't the primary cause of secession is simply wrong.

I hate it when you're right.

I guess I should of further explained, that where I live, if you wear the confederate flag, your apparently racist. I know the civil war had very little to do with freeing slaves.

BORDER STATES, FTW!

KingCracker wrote:I guess I should of further explained, that where I live, if you wear the confederate flag, your apparently racist. I know the civil war had very little to do with freeing slaves.

Ah heh. Well, depends on what nutjob professor you speak too.

A Lost Cause professor will gladly gloss over any mention of slavery, reminding people how noble and gallant those southern boys looked while bravely defending their right to marry their cousins.

A generally liberal professor will analyze the facets of what made slavery an issue in the war; granting that the war began not with slavery as the primary issue, but culminating in some left leaning argument about race, gender, equality, class, ect. being a factor in how the common people or Republicans made it an effort to abolish slavery.

A balanced and somewhat sane professor will accept slavery as one of the causes of the Civil War amongst a factor of other things, namedly the tension between the different regions of the country, states' rights and so forth.

Then you have nutjobs like this:

K, so pardon my knowledge but is this like a white history month or something?

If so then sweet, I wanna go to the south if they will put up with my antics.

No white history would be all the acomplishments of America, including the north. If you say this is white history, then it does become the race issue that it's not supposed to be about.

Confederate History Month day 9!!

Lest we forget...

CSA Constitution Art 4, Sec 3:(3) "The Confederate States may acquire new territory...In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected..."

Confederate History Month! It's the real thing!

Shadowbrand wrote:K, so pardon my knowledge but is this like a white history month or something?

If so then sweet, I wanna go to the south if they will put up with my antics.

This is an attempt by one of several southern sates in the south east portion of the United States that attempts to remember the more nobler and romantic aspects of fighting for their independence during the American Civil War.

Southerners who were defeated by the Union attempted to justify their cause by painting a picture of a South that was benevolent and just in their right to secede from the United States. Slavery in this context often becomes ignored, or at best idealized as slave owners did when they did own slaves (i.e. opposite of Uncle Tom's Cabin). They seek to immortalize the leaders of the rebellion like Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Thomas Stonewall Jackson for their brave efforts against a mighty enemy. They attempt to put on a pedestal the brave warriors who fell in defense of their states and their way of living. Think of it as a panacea for the ill effects they suffered after being utterly crushed in one of the first total wars of modern history.

Ahh, again pardon my lack of knowledge. It sounds cool.


R.I.P General Lee

As to any claims that the issues that sparked the War Between the States could have been resolved democratically, there was a congressional override due to an imbalance in the number of Northern and Southern representatives.

In short, just because the simple majority gets what it wants, it doesn't mean that those left over aren't sufficiently numerous to want to change that.

WarOne wrote:A balanced and somewhat sane professor will accept slavery as one of the causes of the Civil War amongst a factor of other things, namedly the tension between the different regions of the country, states' rights and so forth.

That wouldn't be a balanced view. While other issues mattered to the South, they were peripheral to the issue of slavery. It is also fair to argue that the North didn't fight the war to free the slaves, it fought to maintain the union, but that doesn't change the reason the South started the war.

sexiest_hero wrote:No white history would be all the acomplishments of America, including the north. If you say this is white history, then it does become the race issue that it's not supposed to be about.

Hmm, so White History Month would be considered racist by non-whites?

I'm sure BHM is considered racist by non-Negros but I, being Caucasian, don't see anything racist about BHM so I guess I don't see what would be racist about WHM or even Confederate History Month.

Guess I'm not the racist, nutjob right-winger I'm made out to be.

I hate everyone that isn't me so therefore I can't be racist.

sebster wrote:That wouldn't be a balanced view. While other issues mattered to the South, they were peripheral to the issue of slavery. It is also fair to argue that the North didn't fight the war to free the slaves, it fought to maintain the union, but that doesn't change the reason the South started the war.

Believe that if you want, but that isn't historically accurate. The problems behind the Civil War go much further back, and most of them don't involve slavery...

BHM is to showcase everything that African american have contributed to America. From seving in wars, to producing the first immortal human cells(that were used to cure polio, unlock the secret to artificial impregnating, and being the first human cells in place) as well as the thousands of other ways we have helped America grow. The shortest month of the year is set aside to show America that we are so much more than baggy pants and generic rap. Conederate month, in contrast remembers Leaders who wanted to rip America apart and cosed thousands of lives.

I don't think that a comparison between Black History Month and Confederate History Month is helpful. Black History Month is fine and good to have and we should keep celebrating it. Moreover, it should be celebrated in all the States because black Americans have contributed to our Republic everywhere. Confederate History Month, by contrast, is not about celebrating the accomplishments of Confederate soldiers but rather remembering their travails and sacrifice. It is not about celebrating the ideology of the CSA's leadership but rather trying to understand (rather than summarily dismiss) why they made the choices they did and what that tells about the political history of the United States. I'm not sure whether it should be celebrated by all States, however. On the one hand, States that were not a part of the Confederacy do not have the same kind of connection; it is not directly a part of their identity. But, on the other hand, if we are indeed part of one country, then everyone would benefit from remembering that this was not always the case and many, many American lives were lost in determining that.

Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, so White History Month would be considered racist by non-whites?

Whites have dominated US history, because they've been in the majority and because they're completely dominated the positions of power. As a result the history of the US is already dominated by white people. Black history month says 'here are some things done by non-whites'.

Basically, there's a big difference between a majority stepping aside to recognise the contributions of others for a moment, and the majority making a deliberate effort to talk only about themselves. The first is inclusion, the second is exclusion.

I'm sure BHM is considered racist by non-Negros but I, being Caucasian, don't see anything racist about BHM so I guess I don't see what would be racist about WHM or even Confederate History Month.

Again, it isn't simply the idea of a Confederate History Month, there are theoretical Confederate History Months that might not be racist at all. But a Confederate History Month that doesn't mention slavery - that's something very different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Believe that if you want, but that isn't historically accurate. The problems behind the Civil War go much further back, and most of them don't involve slavery...

We've done this before, best not to bother again, yeah?

sebster wrote:Again, it isn't simply the idea of a Confederate History Month, there are theoretical Confederate History Months that might not be racist at all. But a Confederate History Month that doesn't mention slavery - that's something very different.

Regardless of whatever we may disagree on, this--I think the main point of this thread--is absolutely correct.

sebster wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, so White History Month would be considered racist by non-whites?

Whites have dominated US history, because they've been in the majority and because they're completely dominated the positions of power. As a result the history of the US is already dominated by white people. Black history month says 'here are some things done by non-whites'.

Basically, there's a big difference between a majority stepping aside to recognise the contributions of others for a moment, and the majority making a deliberate effort to talk only about themselves. The first is inclusion, the second is exclusion.

I'm sure BHM is considered racist by non-Negros but I, being Caucasian, don't see anything racist about BHM so I guess I don't see what would be racist about WHM or even Confederate History Month.

Again, it isn't simply the idea of a Confederate History Month, there are theoretical Confederate History Months that might not be racist at all. But a Confederate History Month that doesn't mention slavery - that's something very different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Believe that if you want, but that isn't historically accurate. The problems behind the Civil War go much further back, and most of them don't involve slavery...

We've done this before, best not to bother again, yeah?

Gotcha. It still can be construed as racist and I know a few people who think it's utter crap that BHM exists but if someone wanted to make, say August, WHM they'd be shot down as racist. Whites might still be the majority in the majority of the US but that doesn't mean that BHM is accepted and recognized as a time to point out all the good Black people have done by everyone.

Me, I could care less. If the Latino's want to have a LHM more power to them. Me, I want a Gun History Month. A month to celebrate all the good that guns have done for our country.

Guns do no good. They just kill. And in the real world Fateweaver, killing=bad.

isthatmycow wrote:Guns do no good. They just kill.

The only reason Fateweaver has not responded yet is that his head has just exploded at your stereotypically shallow insight. TBH, I am fighting hard to keep my own head from exploding. Thankfully, I am laughing hard enough to not be genuinely mad.

Blast those evil guns. Sneaking around committing crimes and killing people! DAMMIT! *shakes fist*

I am very aware of how shallow that was, I just don't see why we need to celebrate guns. They honestly can cause more problems than they solve.

At first I was looking to see if your flag was the European variety. Then I noticed your from California. Its ok, someday your state will break off from America and you can join the others over there.

Taking guns away is so beyond stupid it hurts my brain

Yeah, let's just return to Confederate History Month.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:As our governor has asked let's take a minute to reflect on why those good ole boys fought...

I'll never understand why people honor and glorify anything from the Confederacy, especially the average rebel soldier. These guys fought to keep in place an economic system(slavery) that ensured that they would remain poor. If anything could be learned from reflecting on the Confederacy, it would be a cautionary tale of how blind patriotism is completely slowed. "Hey guys, we're struggling to make ends meet, but lets fight,kill and die to make sure our rich leaders can stay rich by using free labor instead of us! Those yanks are tyrants! Oh and uh, States Rights!"

The modern day equivalent would be America's average 10% unemployed and even more underemployed rising up to defend businesses that use illegal immigrants for work, or corporations that outsource to developing nations for cheaper labor.

If my family had an ancestor who fought for the confederacy, I'd be ashamed that such epic idiocy was possible in my genes.

NELS1031, your opinion is the best argument in favor of Confederate History Month given that it reveals the paucity of accurate information concerning the average confederate soldier, his motivations and priorities, and the circumstances of his life.

I am assuming it was a hyperbolic statement.

If it wasn't then yeah, wtf?

It's probably a good thing that 2 of the 3 guns I own are locked in a safe. Would hate for them to kill me in the middle of the night.

The .45 on the other hand is kept either under my pillow or on the nightstand next to me. God help me if I ever piss it off. It might take it's own safety off and shoot me dead.

As to GHM what's wrong with the idea (well, unless you are a liberal)?

Some Mayor responded to questions about lack of police (the force was cut nearly in half due to budget cuts) with a reply "I strongly urge citizens to get training and arm themselves."

Sounds like my kind of Mayor.