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.

 Wyzilla wrote:
My quote button didn't work, was supposed to be quoting Iron from page one.

Although I also have heard of some people talking about banning it, but never in force. But any talk of banning symbols needs to be brought down in regards to America- it goes against our ideals as a nation.

(Or at least the ones we're supposed to hold)

Ah, fair enough. I agree that it shouldn't be banned. Removing any state level involvement (license plates etc) is all the government action needed.

Outside of that the important thing is to inform people of what it really meant, and how it was really used.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Don't ban it. The day Free Speech dies is the same day my faith in this nation continuing to be semi-decent dies as well. Exceptions besides destructive libel or screaming in a fire in a theater can't be added, it flies in the face of some of the concepts this nation was founded upon.

The Confederate Flag may be a disgusting symbol of traitors, but that isn't grounds to ban it. For the same reason of protecting free speech, I fully support the public usage of Swastikas or pointy white hats. Not only does it help us identify the asses of society, but it also ensures we remember.

Ignorance of the past begets horrors of the future.

h

The government is NOT "banning" the Confederate Flag. It is just pushing for its elimination from government buildings and offices, and to complete the Reconstruction work of eliminating the overt adoption of traitors as rallying points for racists from the public.

Private individuals will still be able to buy Confederate Flags (but likely, at this point - as it should be - only from racist organizations, or explicitly historical foundations who will likely vet their customers to only provide for legitimate historical use of the flags).

Doing this is EXACTLY what we should be doing, as it puts the flag in its PROPER CONTEXT: the symbol of racist traitors used by other racists as a means of self-identification.

This makes it VERY EASY for the rest of polite society to INSTANTLY recognize another as a racist, if they willingly adopt the symbols of a racist and traitorous group, whose sole reason for existence was the continued propagation of the institution of slavery of the black man (and woman).

The South, in their various statements of secession made it very clear that their formation of the Confederate States was about Slavery, and that they believed it was their divine right to own slaves, which they saw as being, not human beings (the only recognized "human beings" to the Confederacy was the "White Man" - read any of their statements and this is clear), but rather they saw Black Hmans as "lesser animals" over which they had been granted dominion by God.

So... Free Speech will remain.

People will retain the right to label themselves a racist, bigot, and sympathizer of traitors as they do now, by the adoption of whatever symbols they wish.

We are just making their job easier to do so.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
WHY EXACTLY are people looking for reasons to white-wash this issue, to look for an excuse to retain a symbol of Traitors to our Nation, or to the USA?

I am puzzled by this as well. I am also puzzled by people who have pride in their ancestors' participation in the CSA army. It wasn't long ago that we, as a country, were labeling one another traitors depending on how we ordered our fried potatoes (were they the French variety or full of FREEDOM?) and yet it is perfectly acceptable to want to honor those who took up arms against our nation. Very puzzling indeed.

My family on my father's side were officers and NCOs in the Confederate Army (we were slave-owning landholders in East Texas).

It was a source of great shame to my grandfather, and to his father (the whole story is sorrid and tragic in the level of hatred some in my family had, and still have - my great-grandfather's brother's never recovered economically as a result of their refusal to let go of what had been lost in the war). And my grandfather communicated to me that it should never be something I was proud of. The language he used was probably the strongest I ever heard from him.

It just goes to show that Reconstruction in the USA failed, and that work remains to be done in establishing that we do not make heroes out of traitors, or out of racists, no matter the depth of history involved.

MANY of the officers in the Third Reich came from ANCIENT Hapsburg lines in Austria, who were honorable men, yet not so honorable that they were not willing to fight for an evil cause.

Which remains the case with the men and generals who fought for the CSA. They failed the test of "good men" when they fought for an evil cause.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I find it funny that when it comes to the confederacy, people who would normally be moral absolutists become moral relativists.

Exactly!

Their inability to differentiate between a people remaining true to their oaths, while struggling with moral issues, and people who betrayed their oaths, LONG AFTER the moral issue has been settled (coincidentally, settle opposite to what the traitors desire) is a mystery (technically, it isn't a mystery. I have had too much coursework in cognitive dissonance, the backfire effect, and defensiveness surrounding values to pretend to be ignorant of why people are unable to make that distinction - they wish to avoid the unpleasantness of realizing how horrifically wrong, and possibly outright evil their beliefs are).

I am in company of quite a few people who went through that transition (including myself - if this were 1989, I would be one of the people trying to defend the CSA, much to the horror of my grandfather, were he still alive then).

And we all report that the effects of the realization of how poorly one has chosen their "values" is one that many people do not survive, choosing suicide instead (Ted Haggard, for instance, talks about this in the book "he" wrote after it became apparent that he had sex with men as well - he reported that he would rather have taken his life than confront who he really was).

So... I cannot pretend to ignorance in why people are defending their diet-racism.

MB

In the news today, the company that makes Confederate flags (Valley Forge ?) has announced they are ceasing production.

Three major supermarket chains including WalMart have announced they will stop selling CSA flags.

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Here's a funny piece from Petri of the WaPost called "Every state flag is wrong, and here is why" on how hideous almost all the US state flags are:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/06/23/every-state-flag-is-wrong-and-here-is-why/?hpid=z5

Damn... That's funny!

“You mean this isn’t taken yet?” Texas asked. “How is this not taken? This was literally the first thing I thought of.”

I liked:

“Two words: Confederate Yugoslavia.”
“But neither of those places exists any longer.”
“Sounds to me like their flags are free for the taking.”
“Well –”
“MISSISSIPPI!”

and

"Union. Justice. Confidence. Pelican cannibalism."

Virginia was the best. Also stealing the angry woman leading a revolution with one breast exposed (but only one) while wearing a funny hat from La liberté guidant le peuple. Dirty American thieves!
DEATH TO THE KING! DEATH TO THE TYRANT! DEATH TO THE DICTATOR!

 Orlanth wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No, it really doesn't. A German can honor their ancestors gallantry in battle without flying the flag of the Third Reich.

That is different,

How so?

I think it's a shame when symbols get taken over by hate groups. A similar thing happened in the UK with the union jack. It's a pretty flag and it would be nice if we could fly it and wear it proudly, but it has become synonymous with racism and imperialism now. I think the confederacy flag is also a pretty flag, and I don't see why it couldn't stand for nice things, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the south having its own identity: Southern fried chicken, Easy Rider and Daisy Duke. I think the only way to claim these symbols back from hate groups is to use them, and keep using them in a positive way.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Late to this discussion, but the idea that the Confederacy was 'evil' is two dimensional at best.

Not if you properly understand how nations can be judged. It’s gibberish to think of a whole people as evil, or to think that people in a nation are more likely than others to take individual evil actions. It is institutions which the nation operates that are evil.

So, for instance, by your understanding you think because the South is deemed therefore it’s armies must fight less honourably, and so proof they didn’t means the South mustn’t have been an evil institution. But that’s nonsense, troops can fight bravely and honourably in defence of a nation that is built around immoral institutions.

This is where reading posts properly would help your understanding.
My entire argument is about not judging the nations of the past by 21st century standards.
There is a modern connotation on people saying the 'Confederacy was evil', and pointing out that the South for the most part was commanded and fought honourably does matter.

 sebster wrote:

The Victorian age justified colonialism, whether it was the conquest of the West, or South America, Africa, India or Indo-China.

Of course the Victorian age justified colonialism, nations always find some way or another to justify behaviour that is in it’s own economic advantage. That doesn’t mean colonialism was okay.

Nice to see you can occassionally see the sense, this is the entire gist of my commentary. Now follow the logical thread:

 sebster wrote:

The American Confederacy was a cause of the time, and efforts to retroactively condemn it are just ignorant revisionism. The only excuse to condemn them at all is on the grounds they failed.

Only if we insist on following a moral understanding with personal judgements. Which would be pointless nonsense. It is quite simple to recognise institutions as unethical or even evil, without having to personally condemn every person who part of those institutions.

Contining the local threadfrom above:
While individal action is part of the hisorical record and relevant we have to look at the nations as a whole.

On try doing so.
Yes the Confederacy had a slave economy, both parts of the US had a stolen land economy, and practiced genocide of native peoples to claim that land. As Native American rights were so far off the map, even when some rights for blacks were emerging.
The hard reality was that the Confederacy as alike to all the other colonial civilizations of the 19th century. They took form peoples they believed inferior. If one is judgeable as evil, why not the others.
This was a colonial era and the Confederacy as morally a product of its time, it wasn't morally on a lower par to contemporary nation states except in terms of propaganda persisting erroneously to the present day.

A good example of this highly skewed revisionism is the current complaining by Argentina over the Falkland islands. The kernel of the international support is a condemnation of British colonialism, yet Argentina is a product of Spanish colonialism, which was the same if not worse. Airbrushing out of Spanish and even Argentine colonialism is necessary to make the moral point, not that it would be valid even then, but that is another issue.

It suited Lincoln to paint the South as evil due to slavery, and with credit to him it worked and it was during war so was a air strategem. Now a century and a half later the guilt trip should stop. There has to be a lot of airbrushing of US history to make the Confederacy appear evil in comparison. It isn't necessary now, and isn't morally justifiable to see distant history through a distorted perspective. The Confederacy was no more inherently 'evil' than its contemporary colonial nation states.

 sebster wrote:

That’s a really weird kind of generalisation, sure there are examples of nations standing for inalienable principles, but there’s also plenty of cases where they didn’t. They were inconsistent in their moral convictions, same as we are today.

It fairly well sums up the Victorian mindset frankly, and generalisations are in order to put the point across.
You will always find 'plenty' of cases of exceptions over the mindsets of a people group over a century Sebster, that doesnt invalidate the comment.
The Victorians were closer to moral absolutism than e are today, yet this moralism was clearly selective.

You should be honest about that much at least as all summaries of nation states are generalisations, and that is what this threat topic is about: Summary opinions on the Confederacy.

 sebster wrote:

Yep. People ask why people keep going on about slavery... but people keep going on about the Civil War. That's how people function. History leaves a mark for centuries.

What you are describing is historical culture. It's one of the reasons why flying the Confederate flag should be ok. It's a cultural root, people should be able to say 'this is my ancestry, this is my heritage',
without label.

 sebster wrote:

That's a really good point. And yeah, banning the flag is treating a symptom, not addressing the legacy of racism.

It isnt even treating the symptom, it's perpetually labeling the populace, and thus perpetuating the problem.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I find it funny that when it comes to the confederacy, people who would normally be moral absolutists become moral relativists.

Ad hominem, is an overly convenient alternative to rational argument.

BeAfraid wrote:


The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.

I got to ask, is it your belief that non-whites cannot be racist?

Because La Raza and The Black Panther Party don't typically donate to GOP candidates.

 Orlanth wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No, it really doesn't. A German can honor their ancestors gallantry in battle without flying the flag of the Third Reich.

That is different,

How so?

Jim Webb wrote:This is an emotional time and we all need to think through these issues with a care that recognizes the need for change but also respects the complicated history of the Civil War. The Confederate Battle Flag has wrongly been used for racist and other purposes in recent decades. It should not be used in any way as a political symbol that divides us.

But we should also remember that honorable Americans fought on both sides in the Civil War, including slaveholders in the Union Army from states such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and that many non-slave holders fought for the South. It was in recognition of the character of soldiers on both sides that the federal government authorized the construction of the Confederate Memorial 100 years ago, on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.

This is a time for us to come together, and to recognize once more that our complex multicultural society is founded on the principle of mutual respect.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrat-jim-webb-dont-tear-the-confederate-flag-down-history-not-just-hate/article/2566956

Well, there goes his hopes for a run at POTUS.

 CptJake wrote:

Jim Webb wrote:This is an emotional time and we all need to think through these issues with a care that recognizes the need for change but also respects the complicated history of the Civil War. The Confederate Battle Flag has wrongly been used for racist and other purposes in recent decades. It should not be used in any way as a political symbol that divides us.

But we should also remember that honorable Americans fought on both sides in the Civil War, including slaveholders in the Union Army from states such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and that many non-slave holders fought for the South. It was in recognition of the character of soldiers on both sides that the federal government authorized the construction of the Confederate Memorial 100 years ago, on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.

This is a time for us to come together, and to recognize once more that our complex multicultural society is founded on the principle of mutual respect.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrat-jim-webb-dont-tear-the-confederate-flag-down-history-not-just-hate/article/2566956

Well, there goes his hopes for a run at POTUS.

Nice to see someone gets it.

The Confederate flag.
1. It IS a historical emblem.
2. It can be abused as a hate emblem.
3. Those who assume it is always the latter when displayed are themselves hysterical bigots.

Next person to snarkily inform people they need to work on 'reading comprehension', say something along the lines of 'well at least be honest about X', call the entire other side of an argument bigots, or at least try and frame a statement in that direction while tip toeing on the edge of exactly what I just said, eats it. For at least a day. Stop it now

"Stars and bars", the flag of the confederacy, which represents southern heritage, is not the same thing as the southern cross which was explicitly designed to represent the southern slave owner and his dominion over his African slaves as they point south into South America.

So everyone can stop calling the "confederate flag" "stars and bars" please. A majority of the battles in the civil war were not fought under the Tennessee battle flag which is known today as the confederate flag.

So if someone wants to fly this, actual stars and bars as a symbol of southern heritage, more power to them. They would be actually correct instead of a symbol which was racist from its design on the onset. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg.png

 Orlanth wrote:
2. Its also more recent history, its also directly tied with ideology as it was not a nationalistic flag of the German peoples, but an imposed party symbol. The swastika (in Nazis usage) was never a German symbol, it never truly represented Germany, it represented the Nazi party.

Well, the Battle Flag represented an army instead of a political party or a country. That does not seem like such a big difference to me. The battle flag was not the flag of the South before becoming the flag of the Confederate army (unless I am mistaken) and was not the flag of the South after (at least officially).

 Orlanth wrote:
If this is in any way difficult to understand ask yourself why the 'sons of the south' rose up.

I am not familiar enough with the U.S. history to know what you are talking about.

 Orlanth wrote:
As the choice to serve the confederacy was geographic rather than doctrinal then the symbol is geographic also. Someonn a deep southern state, say Florida, who raise the Stars and Bars is raising a geographical cultural symbol, because that is what it was, first and foremost.

The choice to serve the nazis was very geographical. It was basically: if you live in a zone controlled by the nazi, you serve them. They did not really left you a choice. I am pretty sure it was the same during the ACW, one could not just say “Well, I am for the USA” when in Southern territories or “Well, I am for the CSA” when in the North, could they?

 Orlanth wrote:
If however you insist on painting the Confederate flag as a doctrinal symbol then it would have had to have had a doctrinal core. For this to be true there would be no north vs south, but an ideological divide which woudn't follow geographic boundaries.

There was no real ideological divide among Europe about Nazism either, mostly because it was saying Germans were superior to everyone else. Nobody else wanted to be a second-class citizen. So, how is this different exactly? Does that make the Nazi flag a regional symbol?

I do not understand what makes the Battle Flag more of a regional symbol than the Nazi flag. I do however understand that Germans have tons of other regional symbols they can use, unlike Southern U.S., but I feel that is a problem that should be solved not by using the Battle Flag, but rather by introducing new regional symbols.

 Orlanth wrote:
However it is illogical to assume racism is the root for doing so as the symbol has valid regional heritage connexion

I am not sure I feel this regional heritage connexion is valid, that is the point. I feel it is not, because of the only context in which this flag had an official meaning, which is pretty tainted. If it had a wider official usage, that would be different.

nkelsch wrote:
"Stars and bars", the flag of the confederacy, which represents southern heritage, is not the same thing as the southern cross which was explicitly designed to represent the southern slave owner and his dominion over his African slaves as they point south into South America.

So everyone can stop calling the "confederate flag" "stars and bars" please. A majority of the battles in the civil war were not fought under the Tennessee battle flag which is known today as the confederate flag.

So if someone wants to fly this, actual stars and bars as a symbol of southern heritage, more power to them. They would be actually correct instead of a symbol which was racist from its design on the onset. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg/800px-Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg.png

Nothing unusual in that. The English Civil War throws up similar discrepancies, colloquial thought of as red vs blue uniform colours were often exchanged or otherwise very different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

The choice to serve the Nazis was very geographical. It was basically: if you live in a zone controlled by the nazi, you serve them. They did not really left you a choice. I am pretty sure it was the same during the ACW, one could not just say “Well, I am for the USA” when in Southern territories or “Well, I am for the CSA” when in the North, could they?

The Nazi iconography was directly ideological, it replaced the coexisting regional organisation and flag for the same region.
The Confederate iconography represented a new regional identity, the southern states in seperation from the North.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

There was no real ideological divide among Europe about Nazism either, mostly because it was saying Germans were superior to everyone else. Nobody else wanted to be a second-class citizen. So, how is this different exactly? Does that make the Nazi flag a regional symbol?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I do not understand what makes the Battle Flag more of a regional symbol than the Nazi flag. I do however understand that Germans have tons of other regional symbols they can use, unlike Southern U.S., but I feel that is a problem that should be solved not by using the Battle Flag, but rather by introducing new regional symbols.

That removes the historical context. The German regional symbols coexisted with the Nazi ones and thus can substitute.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
However it is illogical to assume racism is the root for doing so as the symbol has valid regional heritage connexion

I am not sure I feel this regional heritage connexion is valid, that is the point. I feel it is not, because of the only context in which this flag had an official meaning, which is pretty tainted. If it had a wider official usage, that would be different.

It is certainly valid, has been since the 1860's its a historical symbol, or to be more accurate the best known of set of related historical symbols of specifically relating to eleven specific states of the US.
It is very clearly regional heritage.

For this reason it is discriminatory for anyone to automatically assume usage or self affiliation is related to racism or hate crime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
Next person to snarkily inform people they need to work on 'reading comprehension', say something along the lines of 'well at least be honest about X', call the entire other side of an argument bigots, or at least try and frame a statement in that direction while tip toeing on the edge of exactly what I just said, eats it. For at least a day. Stop it now

Strange you bring this up now rather than earlier.

There are those who want to label -

"All those who wear Confederate iconography are bigots."

And those who want to educate those who label -

"All those who assume those who wear Confederate iconography are bigots are themselves being bigoted and should stop if they claim to hold any moral high ground."

It makes logical sense that those who call out bigotry are provisionally against bigotry, and thus presumably correctable.

So pointing out their error by highlighting valid exception to their assumptions and thus the error in their assumptions is an act of recitude and not hatred.

 Orlanth wrote:
The Confederate flag however was a cultural symbol relating the the common ancestry of the descendants of the separatist sates. It can be taken in that context and it should be the assumed default context for flying the flag without good reason to suggest otherwise.

If this is in any way difficult to understand ask yourself why the 'sons of the south' rose up. Did the opinions on slavery differ by latitude? Not really, the geographic element was cultural. People on border states chose a side, often dividing families, those further north or south tended (with the usual caveat of personal exception) to stick with their lcal allegiance. The why may vary, but the choice was obviously regional
This muchis obvious, but at that point most thinking sadly stops. As the choice to serve the confederacy was geographic rather than doctrinal then the symbol is geographic also. Someonn a deep southern state, say Florida, who raise the Stars and Bars is raising a geographical cultural symbol, because that is what it was, first and foremost. History should understand that, finger pointers should also.

If however you insist on painting the Confederate flag as a doctrinal symbol then it would have had to have had a doctrinal core. For this to be true there would be no north vs south, but an ideological divide which woudn't follow geographic boundaries. History has never supported that. The American civil war was always seen as regional, but despite this consistency a consistent look at the Confederate iconography has not followed.

The stars and bars is a de facto regional heritage symbol, motives for raising it can of course vary and racists can and do use it. However it is illogical to assume racism is the root for doing so as the symbol has valid regional heritage connexion, and also because those wanting less bigotry should apply that measure to themselves and not prejudge. Especially not with that sort of heavy moral label.

Absolutely nothing you typed about the Confederate flag is true and I'm saying this as someone who actually has this as their heritage. Nothing. The modern usage of the flag is in direct correlation to suppression of the civil rights of blacks in the South (and elsewhere). The original uses of the flag were in support of an illegal secession and armed insurrection against the government of the United States, all things in direct violation to the Constitution. The lengths you go to dance around this are impressive though. This explains the flag today:

"It is no accident that Confederate symbols have been the mainstay of white supremacist organizations, from the Ku Klux Klan to the skinheads. They did not appropriate the Confederate battle flag simply because it was pretty. They picked it because it was the flag of a nation dedicated to their ideals: 'that the negro is not equal to the white man'. The Confederate flag, we are told, represents heritage, not hate. But why should we celebrate a heritage grounded in hate, a heritage whose self-avowed reason for existence was the exploitation and debasement of a sizable segment of its population?" -Gordon Rhea

It's been said (accurately, I might add) that the Union won the war, but the Confederacy won the narrative. You have completely embraced the Southern narrative of the war and Reconstruction all while completely ignoring the actual causes of secession (even at one point calling them "propaganda"). By your standards, no one at any age can judge the actions of the past, which is ludicrous. You've constructed this narrative that everyone who is rightly calling the Confederacy wrong is also in the same breath, calling the Union the unequivocal good guys. No one is saying that. It's been mentioned time again, the Northern states were not the bastion progressive civil rights for blacks; not by a long stretch. Yet, their emancipation of slaves occurred decades before it was forced in the South. The majority of Northerners still viewed blacks with disdain, yet public opinion was firmly against the continuation of chattel slavery; it was (and is) possible to be an avowed racist and still view the institution of slavery in disgust. You ignore this and instead trot out the idea that because the Union wasn't the gallant white knight of freedom and liberty, the wrongness of the cause of the Confederacy is diminished.

That's a dangerous view.

If you really want to understand the soul of the Confederacy and why moral people oppose the idea of Confederate emblems as "heritage," please refer this excerpt from this oft-ignored speech from Alexander Stephens mere weeks before the attack on Fort Sumter:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.

Anyone Fascinated by the fact that companies are not selling the confederate flag even if it is on miniatures? Isn't that a bit far?

I understand what it has become is offensive, but if you remove it from everywhere people aren't just going to forget, its akin to censorship but a bit worse. As you can still buy a Nazi Third Reich Badge, and yet you can't buy a confederate flag...

A Confederate flag by itself used to stand for the south and its departure, As a privatized item anyone can display it is their right, but a governmental body cannot. The confederate flag now stands to many as a flag of racism, borne by the KKK.

To me it sounds more like someone is just hiding the truth from people. To me the flag itself really helps me point out people who don't know that much or are bigots. But If I see it on a model or in a history book, I would approach it very differently. And yet people are starting to ban them even on toys and game, it seems very much like what Germany did with the Third Reich and any iconography which is to censor it and ensure no one remembers it. Which really doesn't work nor does it remove the history that happened. Its still there. Though I do understand why it is removed, I ask the question of why in games and toys? Is the flag so offensive that it confers that even on images of the Civil War? Are we going to censor the flag whenever it is shown on television? Whats next? Who knows, for all I know it will end right here.

Turning on a blind eye on the past, from a country that is deeply rooted in the massacre of others such as the Native Americans is ironic and hilarious. We pride ourselves over the fact that we are getting rid of the Confederate flag a ym, yet we forget that the american symbol the flag is just a banner of terror to other countries, as many countries in eastern europe only looks at us with hate and fear. As do the Native Americans, the true americans who have not only been ignored by the USA, but have not been given their ancestral homes back. We americans pride ourselves over how we treat each other equally, yet we don't each year their lands grow smaller and smaller. Many native americans are jobless and are quite depressed. You would be too if you grew up in a land that is not abundant in resources. Yet here we are a hundred years after the trail of tears ultra senstive nation that says it is protecting the minorities and others and trying to prove to the world they care about their citizens, a publicity stunt nothing more.

The United States was built on the blood of innocents and those who are native to these lands. To say that the Confederate flag is offensive is minor compared to how offensive the star spangled banner is to the Native Americans, who only see us as mass perpetrators of Mass Genocide.

The problem being is that the more you wish to censor things the more likely that people will not forget but remember, and try to go against the government. The Confederate flag to many others is a sign of the Old South and in a way to the old ways, it is culturally significant to many, to others in the North it is still a symbol of slavery and racism. But so does the American Flag.

Further proving the world is never been black and white, it is always been shades of gray.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Anyone Fascinated by the fact that companies are not selling the confederate flag even if it is on miniatures? Isn't that a bit far?

I understand what it has become is offensive, but if you remove it from everywhere people aren't just going to forget, its akin to censorship but a bit worse. As you can still buy a Nazi Third Reich Badge, and yet I can't buy a confederate flag, isn't that both at the same time hilarious and a bit disturbing?

To me this shows me that people are more sensitive about racism and slavery, than mass extinction.

Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?

I'm sure the people who sell Nazi Third Reich Badge will start selling the klans flag as well, supply and demand and all that.

the Klans flag is just getting pushed back into the dark corners of the internet where it belongs, and not hung on capital buildings.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Anyone Fascinated by the fact that companies are not selling the confederate flag even if it is on miniatures? Isn't that a bit far?

I understand what it has become is offensive, but if you remove it from everywhere people aren't just going to forget, its akin to censorship but a bit worse. As you can still buy a Nazi Third Reich Badge, and yet I can't buy a confederate flag, isn't that both at the same time hilarious and a bit disturbing?

To me this shows me that people are more sensitive about racism and slavery, than mass extinction.

Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?

I'm sure the people who sell Nazi Third Reich Badge will start selling the klans flag as well, supply and demand and all that.

the Klans flag is just getting pushed back into the dark corners of the internet where it belongs, and not hung on capital buildings.

Except the problem is that is not what it is doing. It is just turning a blind eye and becoming very much like germany. Censoring the past to a fit a narrative. Do we know everyone who has the confederate flag is a bigot? This confederate flag includes toys and games that have a single mention of the confederate flag.

Isn't that stupid? I am not talking about the government building just the idea that censoring it because of the image of the flag apparently brings memories of racism, on say a model. Is it right to get rid of it because you simply disagree with it, or would rather us become like Germany. Ultra Sensitive and prone to censorship?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2015/06/24/rebel-flag-gone-stores-nazi-soviet-paraphernalia-remain

While the left and its media water carriers celebrate the purging of the Confederate battle flag from the public and private spheres, they’re hyping the decision of retailers to pull Confederate-themed merchandise. But maybe they should take a look at what other ideology-related swag these stores and websites are selling. Following the South Carolina church shooting, stores including Amazon, Walmart and eBay stopped selling Confederate flag merchandise. Media from USA Today to ABC covered the move as well as the three broadcast networks, with CBS’ Adriana Diaz recognizing the “pressure” that is “mounting in the business community” on June 24. In defense of the decision, Walmart spokesperson Brian Nick explained his company’s reasoning. "We never want to offend anyone with the products that we offer. We have taken steps to remove all items promoting the Confederate flag from our assortment – whether in our stores or on our web site," he told CNN. But the stores aren’t afraid of offending everyone. Amazon sells Swastika covers for Playstation 4, books denying the Holocaust and swastika-decorated knives and pendants. For Soviet Union fanatics, Amazon advertises hammer and sickle pins, aprons and baby bodysuits. Amazon has something for everyone, offering Satanic goat head pendants and “Hail Satan” wristbands. Joining Amazon, Walmart sells airplane models, complete with swastikas, and Soviet heavy tank kits. The chain giant also sells Soviet posters – from Soviet beverage ads to Soviet Boy Scout ads “calling all schoolchildren.” In addition, Walmart boasts a host of Che Guevara paraphernalia, the mass-murdering communist thug who happened to look good in a beret. Walmart sells a Guevara movie poster, an “urban watercolor” canvas and a print citing Guevara: “the true revolutionary is guided by feelings of love.” EBay offered concentration camp cash, a good luck swastika pin, a Soviet Union hammer sickle flag, Lenin and Stalin busts. Earlier: MRC's Special Report Better Off Red by Rich Noyes and Scott Whitlock explores the liberal media's blindness to the evils of communism. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2015/06/24/rebel-flag-gone-stores-nazi-soviet-paraphernalia-remain#sthash.PcRCw7uX.dpuf

It's just a flag. It doesn't make anybody be or do anything.

People behaved differently, had different standards, morals, beliefs and knowledge in different eras. The Confederate flag shouldn't be flown over state and federal buildings because it's not longer a flag that represents a state or the nation. Private citizens can fly whatever flags they want for any reason they want. The mere symbol itself holds no meaning beyond what an individual ascribes to it.

The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't an evil bigotted racist tv show just because Bo and Luke painted the battle flag on the roof of their car.

If we're going to get outraged over flags that were flown by people whose beliefs and actions we now find unacceptable we need to be upset over most of the flags that exist.

Japan committed horrible racist genocidal atrocities against civilians during WWII and evil war crimes against POWs. Should I be offended by Japan's flag? Does anyone who chooses to wear or fly that flag automatically give his/her tacit approval to the crimes committed under the auspices of that flag?

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's just a flag. It doesn't make anybody be or do anything.

People behaved differently, had different standards, morals, beliefs and knowledge in different eras. The Confederate flag shouldn't be flown over state and federal buildings because it's not longer a flag that represents a state or the nations. Private citizens can fly whatever flags they want for any reason they want. The mere symbol itself holds no meaning beyond what an individual ascribes to it.

The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't an evil bigotted racist tv show just because Bo and Luke painted the battle flag on the roof of their car.

If we're going to get outraged over flags that were flown by people whose beliefs and actions we now find unacceptable we need to be upset over most of the flags that exist.

Japan committed horrible racist genocidal atrocities against civilians during WWII and evil war crimes against POWs. Should I be offended by Japan's flag? Does anyone who chooses to wear or fly that flag automatically give his/her tacit approval to the crimes committed under the auspices of that flag?

Agree completely!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Absolutely nothing you typed about the Confederate flag is true and I'm saying this as someone who actually has this as their heritage. Nothing. The modern usage of the flag is in direct correlation to suppression of the civil rights of blacks in the South (and elsewhere). The original uses of the flag were in support of an illegal secession and armed insurrection against the government of the United States, all things in direct violation to the Constitution. The lengths you go to dance around this are impressive though.

Yes the star and bars may represent a historical inaccuracy, however that is not relevant to it remaining a real historical symbol. At least is accurate from the time, if mistranscribed.
Wile it may be a specific flag from the Confederacy and not the de facto flag of the confederacy of the time it is however the symbol of the Confederacy.
Anyone from history books and programs, to novels, to wargamers to popular culture uses the stars and bars as the cultural emblem.

This point was highighted earlier.

Having a technically inaccurate historical symbol int unique to this case, and doesn't invalidate it.
Let me show you perhaps the best known example of this related to flags:



You cant deny this is a historical icon about England.
However factually it has nothing to do with England, it was adopted for the purpose. St George never visited England. Ireland on the other hand uses the St Patrick flag with some historical logic to it.
Georgia has a far better claim to th St George flag, but must use a bastardised version as a national flag, because it now and has for a long time meant England in international usage and St George is our adopted patron saint.

It would be futile to claim, no matter the inaccuracy, that the St George flag is not a symbol of England.

The 'stars and bars' are in the same position. Everything from the 80's TV serial North and South, to History channel to old paintings often show that flag to represent the Confederacy. It has sort of stuck.

 Orlanth wrote:
to History channel to old paintings often show that flag to represent the Confederacy. It has sort of stuck.

Well, the thing with that is, I've never seen a History channel anything about the ACW that wasn't talking about the soldiery. As it was the "battle standard" (and actually, to be technical, the white stars were the naval jack, not the battle standard) of the armies, it makes sense to use it when talking of military conflict. Same thing with paintings. If you're painting a group of grey uniformed soldiers, they are clearly confederates, and they typically marched under the Southern Cross flags.


Sure, if we're talking "daily southern life" or "the CSA government" then yeah, using the battle standard or naval jack doesn't really make all that much sense.

 Asherian Command wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Anyone Fascinated by the fact that companies are not selling the confederate flag even if it is on miniatures? Isn't that a bit far?

I understand what it has become is offensive, but if you remove it from everywhere people aren't just going to forget, its akin to censorship but a bit worse. As you can still buy a Nazi Third Reich Badge, and yet I can't buy a confederate flag, isn't that both at the same time hilarious and a bit disturbing?

To me this shows me that people are more sensitive about racism and slavery, than mass extinction.

Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?

I'm sure the people who sell Nazi Third Reich Badge will start selling the klans flag as well, supply and demand and all that.

the Klans flag is just getting pushed back into the dark corners of the internet where it belongs, and not hung on capital buildings.

Except the problem is that is not what it is doing. It is just turning a blind eye and becoming very much like germany. Censoring the past to a fit a narrative. Do we know everyone who has the confederate flag is a bigot? This confederate flag includes toys and games that have a single mention of the confederate flag.

Isn't that stupid? I am not talking about the government building just the idea that censoring it because of the image of the flag apparently brings memories of racism, on say a model. Is it right to get rid of it because you simply disagree with it, or would rather us become like Germany. Ultra Sensitive and prone to censorship?

Asking for the klans flag to no longer be flown in public places is not censoring the past. The only people I see trying to censor the past are those who want the klans flag to stay on public buildings. How is asking for the klans flag to not fly over SC censoring the past? that flag has nothing to do with SC, it's not the american flag, it's not their state flag, why is it there? how is removing the flag of a terrorist nation censoring the past? What is this southern heritage that the south is so proud of and that the klan flag so well represents? Why when those defending the klans flag get asked about it's history they are so quick to change the topic off from slavery. Or pretend that the war had nothing at all to do with slavery? is that not censoring the past and rewriting it?

Those asking for it's removal want the past to stay in the past, as the battle flag of north virginia. Not in it's current use of the flag of the KKK flown on state & federal grounds. That's not censoring the past.

What companies sell is up to them, Free market and all that. But you can't use ebay as an example of it, we know how ebay works and it's not them selling stuff.
my group plays at a public library and you should see the stink eye people give when doing historical naval battles with the bismark, yet no one bats an eye about any of the confederate flags. No one can stop you from playing with models that are historically accurate, but then again in some public area's you might get asked nicely not to.

How can you claim censorship though, when you have the entire history of the war and statement from those who started it easily available on the internet. I don't think anyone is going to forget that the south was built on slavery, and that they loved slavery so much they tried to form their own nation so they could enshrine owning slaves into their constitution. Like texas put it:

maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

They wanted their slaves and the ability to own slaves til the end of time. Just like Texas though, always thinking big.

Stop calling the the confederate flag "stars and bars".

It is the southern cross. Stars and bars is a totally different flag which looks nothing like the confederate battle flag with the southern cross on it.

Appropriating historical references of the "stars and bars" to the "southern cross" is inaccurate and is totally invalid for discussing the racial overtones of the southern cross.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?

I don't think you could ever get a nazi flag or something similar on Amazon,

However, I do know that you CAN buy scale models that come with a swastika decal, it's just that none of the item pictures on the amazon listing show the swastika itself. I know this because I just looked up a couple of scale model kits that I've built, and know the decal sheets came with the tail swastika on them.

I think that what will end up having to happen is that, let's say hypothetically Games Workshop got into historicals again, and offered a 28mm "CSA infantry" box for this hypothetical wargame. In order for them to sell on amazon, they'd have to picture the box in such a way that the battle standard isn't visible (so, no flag bearer on the box art)

The origins of the flag aren't really as important as how it's currently used.

Like England took the St Patrick flag and said, hey world, this represents us now. so now it's englands flag.

The southern cross was taken by the KKK and they said, hey this now represents us, so now it's the klans flag.

swastikas was actually a symbol of good luck sad it got abused :(.

On topic who cares it is a flag and history will be forgot if people just learn to shut up about it. Give it 1 or 2 more generations then they will throw it out like everything else that gets old lol. Ask any kid born after 2000 they treat hitler the same way they treat alexander the great. A guy from the past who cares.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?

I don't think you could ever get a nazi flag or something similar on Amazon,

However, I do know that you CAN buy scale models that come with a swastika decal, it's just that none of the item pictures on the amazon listing show the swastika itself. I know this because I just looked up a couple of scale model kits that I've built, and know the decal sheets came with the tail swastika on them.

I think that what will end up having to happen is that, let's say hypothetically Games Workshop got into historicals again, and offered a 28mm "CSA infantry" box for this hypothetical wargame. In order for them to sell on amazon, they'd have to picture the box in such a way that the battle standard isn't visible (so, no flag bearer on the box art)

I really doubt the GW scenario, as far as I know, no one is calling to ban the flag outright. It was asked to be taken off from state buildings, then some retailers decided to stop selling it or making it. That's not banning the flag, that's just public opinion and the free market at work.

sirlynchmob wrote:

I really doubt the GW scenario, as far as I know, no one is calling to ban the flag outright. It was asked to be taken off from state buildings, then some retailers decided to stop selling it or making it. That's not banning the flag, that's just public opinion and the free market at work.

Well, what I'm seeing when I look on there currently, is that you can still buy a Panzer IV model, a Messerschmitt 109 model, the Bismarck model, etc.... all of which come with Nazi Iconography in the kits. The thing all of them have though, is that none of them have a group of photos of the product showing the swastika flag.


That's why I would imagine any gaming company would either have to change their item picture for Amazon, not have a picture, or make a good case to amazon why their item doesn't fit the company's wish to not sell confederate iconography holding items.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Could you ever get the Nazi Third Reich Badge at amazon? or wall mart?

I don't think you could ever get a nazi flag or something similar on Amazon,

However, I do know that you CAN buy scale models that come with a swastika decal, it's just that none of the item pictures on the amazon listing show the swastika itself. I know this because I just looked up a couple of scale model kits that I've built, and know the decal sheets came with the tail swastika on them.

I think that what will end up having to happen is that, let's say hypothetically Games Workshop got into historicals again, and offered a 28mm "CSA infantry" box for this hypothetical wargame. In order for them to sell on amazon, they'd have to picture the box in such a way that the battle standard isn't visible (so, no flag bearer on the box art)

You are so SO wrong lol. Just did a quick search on Amazon now- they sell 5'x3' flags lol