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.

 Manchu wrote:
The battle flag is symbolically present to us in a way that largely invisible names are not.

Yeah, no one within 100 miles of Ft Hood or Ft Bragg or any of the others on that list have any idea those sprawling bases with 10s of thousands of troops and even more civilians and family members exists.

I'll bet a pay check that a search of news articles over the past say 10 years finds a LOT more references to Ft Bragg and Ft Hood than you will find references to the confederate flag.

Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...

What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.

We have to be careful to distinguish in this conversation, not just here on Dakka of course but in the current national conversation, whether we are talking about meanings created during the course of this conversation (teetotaling) or meanings that already exist.

The present-day racist meaning of the battle flag is known to virtually all Americans, regardless of how much or little they know about the Civil War itself. The name "Ft Bragg" is nothing like this.

Is there any more news about the shootings? It seems to me that the next piece of news will be the trial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The battle flag is symbolically present to us in a way that largely invisible names are not.

Yeah, no one within 100 miles of Ft Hood or Ft Bragg or any of the others on that list have any idea those sprawling bases with 10s of thousands of troops and even more civilians and family members exists.

I'll bet a pay check that a search of news articles over the past say 10 years finds a LOT more references to Ft Bragg and Ft Hood than you will find references to the confederate flag.

So what?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is there any more news about the shootings? It seems to me that the next piece of news will be the trial.

Not that I've seen that hasn't been repeated. The next piece of actual news will either be more information on his life and possible organizations he belonged to, or press releases/motions from his attorney, if any. Then the trial.

In the meantime, we'll have 12-18 months of Flag bs to wade through on Facebook.

 Manchu wrote:
Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...

What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.

What is so strange about it? What can you call it, other than a privilege, to receive all the benefits that being protected by others entails, while being able to be completely disconnected and unaware of the systems in place that provide this protection. Kind of like how people who live in racially homogenous communities don't often have to think about race, most Americans don't have to think about the military other than having a general warm fuzzy feeling about how they "support the troops" but aren't really interested in any of the details.

Now, I'm not saying that this is an inherently negative thing. Our all-volunteer military is set up to provide a system where the average American male has no responsibility to support the common defense other than to register for selective service, and the average American female has literally no responsibility whatsoever. In actual fact, I think it is a very great thing. But that doesn't change the fact that the ability to go through your entire life with significant lack of awareness of the military is a significant privilege, and it is a privilege that many, many people in other parts of the world do not have.

I think you can make a "heritage" argument for things named after confederate soldiers a lot easier than you can the Battle Flag itself.

That Lee, Longstreet, et al fought for a messed up cause doesn't change that they were very good American Generals.

Of course, then you look at the post-war careers of some of them, and start to re-think things.

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

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So, Amazon are pulling the Confederate Flag. As somebody mentioned earlier, does this apply to troops used in miniature wargaming?

Also, what's the deal with the Union Jack, the British flag?

An article that I saw online yesterday said Walmart, and Amazon were pulling "everything" with that particular Confederate Flag. I hadn't looked for an ACW 15mm or 28mm miniature army on Amazon, but I know they weren't at Walmart I do have to wonder if the private sellers will have an opportunity to "Sell" their product to Amazon to try and keep it there, or have it listed without a picture?


Anyhow, with all the inbred rednecks that I know that shop at Walmart, I hope the backlash is strong and severe... Severe enough that Walmart files for bankruptcy and goes away forever

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So, Amazon are pulling the Confederate Flag. As somebody mentioned earlier, does this apply to troops used in miniature wargaming?

Also, what's the deal with the Union Jack, the British flag?

An article that I saw online yesterday said Walmart, and Amazon were pulling "everything" with that particular Confederate Flag. I hadn't looked for an ACW 15mm or 28mm miniature army on Amazon, but I know they weren't at Walmart I do have to wonder if the private sellers will have an opportunity to "Sell" their product to Amazon to try and keep it there, or have it listed without a picture?


Anyhow, with all the inbred rednecks that I know that shop at Walmart, I hope the backlash is strong and severe... Severe enough that Walmart files for bankruptcy and goes away forever

I think it's political correctness gone mad, and predictably, some people aren't taking this lying down.

Confederate flag tattoos are on the increase. You just know someone will walk, bare-chested into Walmart, with their chest covered in that flag

 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.”

BeAfraid wrote:


Rather trivial to back up.

If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.

TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.

WHY.

Because the South is predominantly GOP.

Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.

Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.

Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).

Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.

And, it all boils down to this:

That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.

MB

Dude... really? None of that is even remotely right.

Let's simply take South Carolina here... since this is the state we're talking about in this thread.

-The Govenor, Niki Haley is a minority Republican woman.
- The GOP SC Senator is Tim Scott... who's black.

To reiterate, it was the Democratic Governor Fritz Hollins in 1962 who raised this flag over SC capital, and it was a GOP Governor Haley who led the charge to have it removed from Capital grounds in 2015.

There seems to be this fetish some folks want to push that it's the south, that's all racist and where Jim Crowism still lives.

If that's true, that why are blacks migrating in droves to the south?

The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.”

Bwahahaha!

Texas' flag is good enough for any country.

 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."

No the greatest trick you try to pull is trying to claim that the Democrats from 50 years ago are anything like modern Democrats.

You also didn't actually address his arguments...

Only "new" news is the dashcam video of piece of crap being arrested. I think we're going to shift (news media) to Freddy Gray autopsy report is soup sandwich)

Back on the topic

Think we need to add a ACW debate backslash to title

Regardless of Union or Confederate trooper. Patriotism ideals values etc etc ends after the first fight. Hatred becomes the primary motivation. IIRC

 Jihadin wrote:
Regardless of Union or Confederate trooper. Patriotism ideals values etc etc ends after the first fight. Hatred becomes the primary motivation. IIRC

I think the high number of truces, trades, and meetings of soldiers on different sides that went on during the war puts a bit of a dent in that theory.

Coffee and tobacco.

Hell i've talked to Insurgents
Once battle is joined that's out the damn wndow

 Manchu wrote:
Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...

What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.

We have to be careful to distinguish in this conversation, not just here on Dakka of course but in the current national conversation, whether we are talking about meanings created during the course of this conversation (teetotaling) or meanings that already exist.

The present-day racist meaning of the battle flag is known to virtually all Americans, regardless of how much or little they know about the Civil War itself. The name "Ft Bragg" is nothing like this.

So, by tht standard, if SC switched to the stars and bars which folks did not recognize as a confederate flag, all would be good?

 skyth wrote:
No the greatest trick you try to pull is trying to claim that the Democrats from 50 years ago are anything like modern Democrats.

You also didn't actually address his arguments...

Because I don't want to drag this thread to another topic... if you wish, we can take it to PM

*I know I've been horrible about that here...

 skyth wrote:
No the greatest trick you try to pull is trying to claim that the Democrats from 50 years ago are anything like modern Democrats.

You also didn't actually address his arguments...

Yes, there's a concept called realignment. Southern Democrats were viciously racist, at a time when much of the south was a one-party state. Things, you know, changed. There were hard conservative Democrats back then, and there were even, GASP, liberal Republicans. The parties slow alignment into the liberal/conservaitve approximations they are now didn't really kick in until Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968. Look at the voting record for the Civil Rights Act: all northern senators, GOP and Dem alike, voted yay, while all Southern senators, voted nay. After Nixon began winning the south, Reagan repeated the trick. (Carter in 76 was an anomaly, due partially to the unpopularity of the Nixon/ford era, and partially to being an evangelical Southern Governer). Keep in mind, southern dems increasingly did not support the national Democratic candidate, with "dixiecrats" actively splitting and campaigning in 1948. Even earlier, FDR knew that being racially progressive could hurt his support in the south. [side bar: even Nixon is an interesting case study, in that while a Republican, he championed diplomacy with China, signed into law environmental protections, and was the one that eventually pulled out of Vietnam, after Johnson escalated it.]

The south may have once been Democratic, but on a national level the cracks began in 48, widened in 68, and by 1980 the south and the national Democratic party weren't really on speaking terms. It took longer to filter down to the State and local levels, but the modern GOP, with it's broadest bases in pro-business, social conservatism, and evangelical christianity is much closer to the platform of Southern Democrats than the modern Democratic party.

Now, the segregationist democrats were, indeed, democrats, so I won't indulge in a "no true scotsman fallacy," but the parties are different now. Issues change, and demographics change, and thus the parties change.

Ulysses S. Grant wrote:I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.

Alabama governor orders Confederate flags taken down
By Tom LoBianco and Shawn Nottingham, CNN
(http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/alabama-governor-confederate-flags/index.html)

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley has directed that four Confederate flags be taken down from a Confederate memorial at the state capitol.

Bentley's order comes just two days after South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley asked state lawmakers to remove the flag from her state's capitol, and amid a seismic shift on the question of whether the flag should fly on government property, in the wake of last week's church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.

Bentley spokeswoman Yasamie August told CNN that the flags were taken down because Bentley did not want to distract from legislative issues. August said the move will be permanent.

The Birmingham News reports that workers quietly removed the flags at 8:20 a.m. Wednesday and declined to answer questions. Bentley later told the paper that the flags had "the potential to become a major distraction" as state leaders work through the state budget and other issues.

 Hordini wrote:
to receive all the benefits that being protected by others entails, while being able to be completely disconnected and unaware of the systems in place that provide this protection

Ah, I thought you were referring to something particular about the military. This kind of "privilege" is everywhere. For example, the privilege of being "disconnected" from the legal system or medical research or food production.

 CptJake wrote:
So, by tht standard, if SC switched to the stars and bars which folks did not recognize as a confederate flag, all would be good?

As usual, the answer is "it depends." It depends on things like, what would be the motivation for doing so? What would that the stars and bars come to mean by the time a national conversation had taken place about a prospective change? If the stars and bars became a crypto-racist symbol, then the standard (your word) would obviously not apply.

 Hordini wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...

What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.

What is so strange about it? What can you call it, other than a privilege, to receive all the benefits that being protected by others entails, while being able to be completely disconnected and unaware of the systems in place that provide this protection. Kind of like how people who live in racially homogenous communities don't often have to think about race, most Americans don't have to think about the military other than having a general warm fuzzy feeling about how they "support the troops" but aren't really interested in any of the details.

Now, I'm not saying that this is an inherently negative thing. Our all-volunteer military is set up to provide a system where the average American male has no responsibility to support the common defense other than to register for selective service, and the average American female has literally no responsibility whatsoever. In actual fact, I think it is a very great thing. But that doesn't change the fact that the ability to go through your entire life with significant lack of awareness of the military is a significant privilege, and it is a privilege that many, many people in other parts of the world do not have.

It you are talking about conscription, it is the exception rather than the rule; worldwide there are a lot more countries with volunteer forces than conscripted ones. This is particularly true in the first world, where only a very few countries still have conscription laws, the USA ironically being one of them (conscription possible in emergencies.)

Apart from conscription, what constitutes a connection to the armed forces? If you mean awareness of and attendance to ceremonies such as Armistice Day, and the like, these are actually pretty widespread in the first world.

Just remember
There's a individual in our office that has a plaque

"Browncoats will rise again"

 Jihadin wrote:
Just remember
There's a individual in our office that has a plaque

"Browncoats will rise again"

Is that from the TV show Firefly?

 kronk wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Just remember
There's a individual in our office that has a plaque

"Browncoats will rise again"

Is that from the TV show Firefly?

Yes.
Who doesn't have that DVD/Blue ray editions CD"s?

 kronk wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Just remember
There's a individual in our office that has a plaque

"Browncoats will rise again"

Is that from the TV show Firefly?

Yes it is.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Fighting "honorably" doesn't diminish the wrongness of your cause. Millions of German soldiers fought against the Allies honorably, but that doesn't make the Third Reich any better.

Actually it does. There ought to be a distinction made, and frankly post 1945 there was. Some services muted party influence, Doenitz was effective at this.
However a lot of people use German and Nazi interchangably with regards to the war, this works as propaganda, but for historical purposes a finer distinction is required.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

The other thing that is funny here is that you go to great lengths to diminish the wrongness of the Confederate cause by saying, "We have to judge it through the lens of history," but you're happy to use the Savannah Campaign as a way to show how the Union was also "bad."

I went to great lengths to say I didn't judge the Union either.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No. As a matter of fact, it has been routinely discussed in this thread that most people in America didn't care about the treatment of minorities. However, there was a rather large abolitionist movement in the North that turned public opinion towards emancipation. Besides, the issue of slavery wasn't a binary thing; it was more than possible to believe the white race was inherently better than the black race but still think slavery was abhorrent.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

And yes, slavery was the issue, there is no dancing around it.

Secessionism was the issue, slavery was an expedient catalyst.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Likewise I don't condemn the Union either, it was 19th century colonialism and everyone who could was at it. yet today people look at the UK and Spain with anti-colonial eyes, or sometimes its the Spanish looking at us, or the Americans. Its revisionism. We were all at it then, and considered it a good idea. The Victorian age justified colonialism, whether it was the conquest of the West, or South America, Africa, India or Indo-China.

You've engaged in quite a bit of revisionism yourself so far.

Actually I had not.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Besides, was can most definitely use our position in history to condemn the Confederacy.

The only position we have is that the Confederacy was destroyed. The moral argument cant really be made except through revisionism.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

No, we can condemn the Confederacy because they were wrong, just like they were condemned before and during the war.

How were they wrong. They wanted to secede.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

However, points for bring up the American Revolution as a bad attempt at tu quoque.

Why not.

If some can say, we want to govern ourselves, other can also. There is a logic to that. Especially on the context of success. Had the revolution failed how would history have seen those that tried?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

As for sons of the South wearing Stars & Bars........

That's rich. Because the CSA had a "better rapport" with the Native American tribes, they weren't that bad?

Not relevant. The two comments are separate. One need not pass a moral judgement on the Confederacy in order to accept its influence on local history. Also no matter who the confederates were people have a right to have some measure of societal pride to say that come from that culture. You yourself do so to some extent, but a burden of guilt is evidently there.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

The treatment of the native peoples of American is historically terrible, but to try use that as a way to justify or diminish the enslave of blacks and their ensuing treatment is just offensive.

It's offensive because that i the way American society today is conditioned. No attempt to justify maltreatment of others was made, only the highlighting that moral virtues were not absolute and there was no case of one side being wrongdoers and the other not. Besides the US has yet to come to terms with its treatment of native Americans, it has come to terms with its past treatment if blacks. There is a larger issue there. Black rights are a political point, other minority rights, Hispanic for example is lagging behind.
Many people are conditioned to have a collective guilt on the Confederacy because of black slavery, however in reality the entire nation is responsible for that.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

The battle flag is not heritage. I've already explained that I am from a Southern state, I live in a Mosby Heritage Area and near the site of the first major battle of the war, and I had family that fought for the CSA... but yet, I feel no need to use the symbol of an armed insurrection against my country to enjoy my "heritage."

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Also, drop the "you're a bigot because you don't like bigots" bs.

First thats not how I explained it. You paraphrase me so badly you twist the entire meaning.

However there is a very valid concerns. I read this earlier, it influenced my decision to post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I agree with John Oliver on the topic: "The Confederate flag one of those symbols that should really only be seen on T-shirts, belt buckles, and bumper stickers to help the rest of us identify the worst people in the world.

You you agree that is someone wears the Confederate flag on their clothing you should immediately label them.
Perhaps they had an ancestor who fought for the South and had pride in the family name.
Is that cause to hate them.
I think you have been frankly conditioned to be embarrassed of your own culture. That rarely helps.
I hope that is the case, I would not want to think you are a screaming bigot who automatically assumes that some people groups are evil.

It might help for you to quantify 'worst people in the world'. I would have though Stalinists, Pol Pot and the Third Reich would IMHO sail past them.

There is good news though. There are re-enactors and history enthusiasts are not being deterred by the label, and many people in the south are not being successfully shamed into hating their heritage.

Also even the darker parts of history are just background, as it should be, as is healthy.
My ancestors fought for Parliament, one was a 'russet coated captain' knew Cromwell personally and approved the execution of King Charles. They were on the losing side eventually, the restoration ended all their gains. Yet now there is no division guilt or shame upon the bloodlines of those who served the Parliamentarian cause, we are up front about it. Those who can trace a family tree back that far and claim that their ancestors fight on one side or other or both having something to drink about with the others, and there is no factionalism.

I hope that those who want to label those who follow Confederate heritage receive similar welcome. The American Civil War might be a bloody episode, but frankly it makes for good history. You can either be asshats about it and hold grudges against people who descend from one side or another, or force people to be ashamed of descending from the wrong side of history or you can relish in your common heritage.

 Orlanth wrote:
Actually it does. There ought to be a distinction made, and frankly post 1945 there was. Some services muted party influence, Doenitz was effective at this.
However a lot of people use German and Nazi interchangably with regards to the war, this works as propaganda, but for historical purposes a finer distinction is required.

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

I went to great lengths to say I didn't judge the Union either.

All while judging the Union.

Secessionism was the issue, slavery was an expedient catalyst.

An unlawful succession. Because of slavery.

Actually I had not.

Then you don't understand what the word "revisionist" means because literally everything you used to defend the CSA was based on revisionist history. The Union won the war, the CSA won the narrative.

The only position we have is that the Confederacy was destroyed. The moral argument cant really be made except through revisionism.

Sure it can, you just don't agree with it.

How were they wrong. They wanted to secede.

They were wrong on the issue of the continued support and expansion of slavery into the western territories and they were wrong because there is no legal basis for their succession from the Union.

Why not.

If some can say, we want to govern ourselves, other can also. There is a logic to that. Especially on the context of success. Had the revolution failed how would history have seen those that tried?

Again, you're making your entire argument on a tu quoque instead of addressing it.

Not relevant. The two comments are separate. One need not pass a moral judgement on the Confederacy in order to accept its influence on local history. Also no matter who the confederates were people have a right to have some measure of societal pride to say that come from that culture. You yourself do so to some extent, but a burden of guilt is evidently there.

You tried to make it relevant. The Confederate flag is not a matter of "societal pride." I have no guilt over my ancestor's role in the Civil War, but I also don't celebrate their treason.

It's offensive because that i the way American society today is conditioned. No attempt to justify maltreatment of others was made, only the highlighting that moral virtues were not absolute and there was no case of one side being wrongdoers and the other not. Besides the US has yet to come to terms with its treatment of native Americans, it has come to terms with its past treatment if blacks. There is a larger issue there. Black rights are a political point, other minority rights, Hispanic for example is lagging behind.
Many people are conditioned to have a collective guilt on the Confederacy because of black slavery, however in reality the entire nation is responsible for that.

What exactly are "Hispanic rights" and how are they lagging behind in the US? Your bring up of the historical treatment of Native Americans our government is whataboutism, just like you dragging the American Revolution into the argument.

However there is a very valid concerns. I read this earlier, it influenced my decision to post:

No they aren't, it's a failed argument.

You you agree that is someone wears the Confederate flag on their clothing you should immediately label them.
Perhaps they had an ancestor who fought for the South and had pride in the family name.
Is that cause to hate them.
I think you have been frankly conditioned to be embarrassed of your own culture. That rarely helps.
I hope that is the case, I would not want to think you are a screaming bigot who automatically assumes that some people groups are evil.

It might help for you to quantify 'worst people in the world'. I would have though Stalinists, Pol Pot and the Third Reich would IMHO sail past them.

There is good news though. There are re-enactors and history enthusiasts are not being deterred by the label, and many people in the south are not being successfully shamed into hating their heritage.

First of all, John Oliver is a comedian and his quip about the Confederate flag is what is commonly refereed to as a "joke." Let me say again, for probably the fourth of fifth time... I have ancestors that fought for the CSA against the Union. I am in no way embarrassed by my family's role in the Civil War and as a matter of fact, I'm quite proud of my connection to history. I'm a proud Virginian: I live next to Balls Bluff, I'm a short drive from Manassas National Battlefield Park, and I live on one of the main roads used by John Mosby and his partisan rangers. None of these things inspire me to wear the symbol of the failed insurrection against my country and the principles it stood for, which was this:

"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." -Alexander Stephens

Also even the darker parts of history are just background, as it should be, as is healthy.
My ancestors fought for Parliament, one was a 'russet coated captain' knew Cromwell personally and approved the execution of King Charles. They were on the losing side eventually, the restoration ended all their gains. Yet now there is no division guilt or shame upon the bloodlines of those who served the Parliamentarian cause, we are up front about it. Those who can trace a family tree back that far and claim that their ancestors fight on one side or other or both having something to drink about with the others, and there is no factionalism.

I hope that those who want to label those who follow Confederate heritage receive similar welcome. The American Civil War might be a bloody episode, but frankly it makes for good history. You can either be asshats about it and hold grudges against people who descend from one side or another, or force people to be ashamed of descending from the wrong side of history or you can relish in your common heritage.

See above.

This whole debate has made me want to watch the Ken Burns documentary again