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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*snip*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

warboss wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

The Hakenkreuz is the symbol of the Nazi party.

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

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

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SaintHazard wrote:

warboss wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

The Hakenkreuz is the symbol of the Nazi party.

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alanedomain wrote:

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

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

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

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

warboss wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

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

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

yeah, i know. see my quote above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SaintHazard wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Careful, you're bordering on racism here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, and good night

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

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

Funny how times change, huh?

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

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

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

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

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

alanedomain wrote:

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

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

Funny how times change, huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

alanedomain wrote:

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

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

Funny how times change, huh?

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

In which case, my original point stands.

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

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







Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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