Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I'm sorry, but changing the state flag isn't changing the culture. How many people, on a daily basis think about their state flag? That number is probably very few.
Yes it is, the iconography of a culture is part of the culture. A culture cant be removed overnight, its a slow change, but the chwnge is no longer unthinkable so the threat of a cultural retcon is now real.
its a sudden large scale hysteria based refusal of sale, and taken to extremes. Withdrawal of actual flags from sale might make some sense, but software or books including the flag is not.
That last bit, you may have to reword, because I honestly don't know what you mean by "revisionism by the removal to host historical works which depict the flag even as a secondary element."
An example is software about the American civil war, which includes Confederate iconography casually due to its subject matten, withdrawn from sale.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I'm sorry, but changing the state flag isn't changing the culture. How many people, on a daily basis think about their state flag? That number is probably very few.
Yes it is, the iconography of a culture is part of the culture. A culture cant be removed overnight, its a slow change, but the chwnge is no longer unthinkable so the threat of a cultural retcon is now real.
its a sudden large scale hysteria based refusal of sale, and taken to extremes. Withdrawal of actual flags from sale might make some sense, but software or books including the flag is not.
That last bit, you may have to reword, because I honestly don't know what you mean by "revisionism by the removal to host historical works which depict the flag even as a secondary element."
An example is software about the American civil war, which includes Confederate iconography casually due to its subject matten, withdrawn from sale.
But none of those are retcons though... And as another user pointed out, apparently Georgia has changed their flag 3 times in the past few years.
The rest of that, again, removing flags T-shirts and such "celebratory" items makes sense, but we can agree that removing software and books just because they have it on the cover is an over-reaction, but that's all it is to me. I think that, once things settle down, and people move on to the next great outrage, you'll start seeing sellers like Amazon reintroduce books, movies and such with the Confederate flag on their cover to the market, but after they've done a review of the material (even if it's just a simple check of the title)
Orlanth wrote: Progressivism is the main brainwash agenda right now, if this is anyway unclear look at how it is used by student mobs, or at theslow march to cultural disintegration in Sweden.
There's certainly a cultural disintegration going on in Sweden; we're becoming more aware of the fact that we're not as good or not-racist as our self-image during the 1970's and 80's would have us believe. Our self-righteousness is being picked apart, piece by piece.
How very progressive. The solution must be more progressivism.
Of course, that's not what you meant at all, so I'm going to ask you: in what manner do you believe that there is a "cultural disintegration" going on in Sweden?
Off topic reply below.
Spoiler:
1. Islamic apologists are bending over backwards. Crime, particularly sex crimes against women is way up with a very disproportional percentage due to Islamic minority.
Radical Islamic culture is short on gender equality, and demonstrate this point on vulnerable women with alarming frequency.
http://www.infowars.com/feminists-mute-on-muslim-rape-epidemic-sweeping-europe/ http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape SWEDEN
Since it embraced multiculturalism in 1975, Sweden has become the rape capital of the west, with only the tiny African nation of Lesotho recording more sexual assaults.
Rapes in Sweden have skyrocketed by a shocking 1,472% since the mid-70’s, with 6,620 sexual assaults being reported to police in 2014 compared to just 421 in 1975.
“77.6 percent of the country’s rapists are identified as “foreigners” (and that’s significant because in Sweden, “foreigner” is generally synonymous with “immigrant from Muslim country”), writes Selwyn Duke. “And even this likely understates the issue, since the Swedish government — in an effort to obscure the problem — records second-generation Muslim perpetrators simply as “Swedes.”
Duke cites a report by the aforementioned Lars Hedegaard and his colleague Ingrid Carlqvist, two journalists who documented, “A new trend (that) reached Sweden with full force over the past few decades: gang rape — virtually unknown before in Swedish criminal history. The number of gang rapes increased spectacularly between 1995 and 2006. Since then no studies of them have been undertaken.”
Authorities have failed to properly investigate the rape epidemic over fears of offending ‘multicultural’ sensitivities – as happened in Rotherham.
“In cases of gang rape, culprits and victims are most often young and in almost every case, the perpetrators are of immigrant background, mostly from Muslim countries. In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists. Several times the courts have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted sex with six, seven or eight men,” states the report.
Just as in Denmark, authorities came down harder on those blowing the whistle on the Muslim rape epidemic than those actually perpetrating the assaults.
“A local Sweden Democrat Party politician named Michael Hess was convicted of the hate-speech charge “denigration of ethnic groups” for making his claim,” writes Duke. “It didn’t matter that he has lived in Muslim countries and that at his trial he presented evidence on the Sharia law position on rape; the court claimed, reports Dispatch International, “that the question of whether or not Michael Hess’s pronouncement is true, or appeared to be true to Michael Hess, has no bearing on the case.”
News outlets in Sweden also routinely fail to report the ethnicity of accused rapists, referring to them only as “Swedes”.
The nly good news about Swedish rape statistics is that when Swedish Islamic immigrants cross the border nd rape in Norway the statistics report it properly.
2. Jews are leaving the country as they don't feel safe there anymore, and its their own fault according to some Swedish progressive polticians.
Now I am no fan of Israel, and criticise Zionism vehemently, but I dont tolerate anti-semintism, though some Zionists fail to understand the distinction.
Swedish officials went as far as to blame Swedens Jews for the rise of anti-semitic attacks in Sweden because of events happening in another country. As Jews they are collectively responsible.
Normally gross anti-Semitism is a fair sign of bigotry and racism, fair call, fair cop, however because the outrage has a politically correct source, its progressive and just.
Somehow the progressivism brainwashed Swedes dont see anything wrong with this type of commentary. Anywhere else he would be censured. However he is still in office.
3. In your progressive paradise of a country no-go areas are spreading.
This needs repeating:
"There's certainly a cultural disintegration going on in Sweden; we're becoming more aware of the fact that we're not as good or not-racist as our self-image during the 1970's and 80's would have us believe. Our self-righteousness is being picked apart, piece by piece." You wer probably actually less brainwashed inthe 70's, Swedisr self righeousness is right now. Its based on an unshkable faith in progressivism which lets Sweden down on every turn.
You have a more equal society, with violent crime increasingly considerably, with ethnic no go areas being common, and a conspiracy of embarassed silience from polticiians who just hope it all just goes away if they stick heads in sand.
Sweden's problem is that because it is used to being a civilised country they don't know how to respond when a large minority influx with a sizable extremist element tries to turn the nation into a toilet. So the answer is to ignore the problem, and to decry any critique, no matter how well documented as lies.
The rest of that, again, removing flags T-shirts and such "celebratory" items makes sense, but we can agree that removing software and books just because they have it on the cover is an over-reaction, but that's all it is to me. I think that, once things settle down, and people move on to the next great outrage, you'll start seeing sellers like Amazon reintroduce books, movies and such with the Confederate flag on their cover to the market, but after they've done a review of the material (even if it's just a simple check of the title)
But what's gone is gone.
It makes the national heritage, something intended to last, very unstable indeed, and unable to survive even the medium term..
Because the next trend appears and more is nibbled away, a bad precedent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/26 01:05:00
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Linking to Gatestone, a well known zionist and anti-muslim group, Alex Jones of all fething people, the Sweden Report which literally lied about the contents of a police report, yeah, expected.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
But what's gone is gone.
It makes the national heritage, something intended to last, very unstable indeed, and unable to survive even the medium term..
Because the next trend appears and more is nibbled away, a bad precedent.
What about this is exactly 'destroying heritage'? All the information, the details, people, places and symbols will be available and are not being changed from history. What'd be changing is the celebration of it all.
And know what? Cultures change. Tradition is not sacred or holy, especially not when it's a tradition of systematic brutality and destruction of fellow human beings. There is no difference between removing a Confederate symbol from off government buildings than there is removing Nazi ones from German buildings.
If anything, destroying heritage occurs in the revisionist apologism that paints the Southern cause as even remotely noble, when it's in reality, as evidenced by the people who planned it, basically starting a war to preserve their financial interests and hate at the sufference of huge swathes of their own human population. I can see the real reasons to memorialize the loss of life, but at no point was the cause ever just.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/26 01:13:57
But what's gone is gone.
It makes the national heritage, something intended to last, very unstable indeed, and unable to survive even the medium term..
Because the next trend appears and more is nibbled away, a bad precedent.
What about this is exactly 'destroying heritage'? All the information, the details, people, places and symbols will be available and are not being changed from history. What'd be changing is the celebration of it all.
And know what? Cultures change. Tradition is not sacred or holy, especially not when it's a tradition of systematic brutality and destruction of fellow human beings. There is no difference between removing a Confederate symbol from off government buildings than there is removing Nazi ones from German buildings.
Where to begin with the above.
First the Confederate were not comperable to the Nazis, and they were morally closer their adversaries than the Nazis were (excepting the Soviets).
Second heritage is being destroyed. Flags are being removed, statues are due to be relocated if some leaders get rhier way, flags changed. Permanent memorials altered.
Also artwork and historical tools are being withdrawn software accredited as historically accurate is being withdrawn because it includes Confederate iconography, denying a point of access to the information. And you need edited history like a hole in the head.
If anything, destroying heritage occurs in the revisionist apologism that paints the Southern cause as even remotely noble, when it's in reality, as evidenced by the people who planned it, basically starting a war to preserve their financial interests and hate at the sufference of huge swathes of their own human population. I can see the real reasons to memorialize the loss of life, but at no point was the cause ever just.
That is anything but helpful. If there is healing to be don after a century and a half people need to get over it. Jefferson Davis is not going to rise from the grave and put chains on blacks. Its history, the past.
If revisionism is required to heal then there is something wrong with the process.
a healthy historical detachment is advised.
In The UK we have a very long and bloody history. You can visit sites of massacres and evil deeds, we don't hide it, and we aren't uncomfortable about it. Because we developed the ability move on.
The Lancastrians and Yorkists slaughtered each other, its just history, there are no regional hatreds Catholic and protestant fought bitter wars, who cares.
Ireland never moved on. They still have vendettas reaching back the best part of a thousand years, and it poisons the people still.
The US inherited our cultural resilience, it helped the country to move on after the American civil war, now its regressing digging up old histories and seeing them as unwelcome icons.
America needs to be in a place where waving the Confederate and Union symbols is a bit of fun, a look at the past and an interesting period of American history as waving our own belligerent symbols are to us.
The last thing you need is progressive nincompoops asking America to self flagellate over the Confederacy a century and a half later, and making anon issue into a hate issue. Because at that point atonement might appear to be the issue, but in actuality it becomes a resource pot that wont go away so long as there is political mileage on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Linking to Gatestone, a well known zionist and anti-muslim group, Alex Jones of all fething people, the Sweden Report which literally lied about the contents of a police report, yeah, expected.
I multiple sourced the specific info that was covered in Gatestone. Multiple sourcing is good cover, you should make comment on that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/26 01:35:25
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
That is anything but helpful. If there is healing to be don after a century and a half people need to get over it.
The last thing you need is progressive nincompoops asking America to self flagellate over the Confederacy a century and a half later, and making anon issue into a hate issue.
150 years? you seem to have missed the evidence of racism being a problem in the US this year. You also seem to have missed that after the civil war no one really cared about that flag until around 1950 when the KKK claimed it and brought it back to fight against the idea of ending segregation. that started just 60 years ago and they are still causing trouble today.
Then in case you missed it, someone associated with the KKK and their flag killed 9 people a few days ago.
What you need to answer is why does that flag belong over a federal or state building? 17 pages in, and no one has yet put forth a valid reason for it to be at a state building.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/26 01:55:40
150 years? you seem to have missed the evidence of racism being a problem in the US this year. You also seem to have missed that after the civil war no one really cared about that flag until around 1950 when the KKK claimed it and brought it back to fight against the idea of ending segregation. that started just 60 years ago and they are still causing trouble today.
The Confederacy was long ago. The KKK are just a few nutcases that represent no one but themselves, and should be ignored or treated like any other criminal gang dependant on what they do.
What you need to answer is why does that flag belong over a federal or state building? 17 pages in, and no one has yet put forth a valid reason for it to be at a state building.
It's part of the cultural heritage of the state.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth, you say progressivism as if it is a bad thing. How can you say that an ideal based on progress is bad?
Lets look at the definition on Wikipedia:
Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[1] Sociologist Robert Nisbet defines five "crucial premises" of the Idea of Progress as being: value of the past, nobility of Western civilization, worth of economic/technological growth, faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason, intrinsic importance and worth of life on earth.
Now, with the exception of the whole "Nobility of western civilization" bit, I'd say that's a pretty good set of ideals. So what exactly is your dislike of humanity improving itself based on reason?
Also Orlanth, does that little report of yours mention that Sweden has very broad rape laws which results in more crimes being classified as rape than many other western nations? Or did you forget about that?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/26 02:07:37
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
150 years? you seem to have missed the evidence of racism being a problem in the US this year. You also seem to have missed that after the civil war no one really cared about that flag until around 1950 when the KKK claimed it and brought it back to fight against the idea of ending segregation. that started just 60 years ago and they are still causing trouble today.
The Confederacy was long ago. The KKK are just a few nutcases that represent no one but themselves, and should be ignored or treated like any other criminal gang dependant on what they do.
What you need to answer is why does that flag belong over a federal or state building? 17 pages in, and no one has yet put forth a valid reason for it to be at a state building.
It's part of the cultural heritage of the state.
So are the flags of africa, lets hang them on the capital as well then. Then a few nascar flags as well.
It's not a state flag, it's not the american flag, to put any other flags up is unamerican and dishonoring the curltural heritage of the states.
It's not a state flag, it's not the american flag, to put any other flags up is unamerican and dishonoring the curltural heritage of the states.
So says the dogmatised progressive. However the Confederacy is de facto a part of the culture of eleven states of the US. It is relevant to their heritage and shouldn't be airbrushed out.
Nascar flags aren't the same.
Confederate flags in say Maine might be a bad idea, but in say Alabama it is local colour.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Orlanth, you say progressivism as if it is a bad thing. How can you say that an ideal based on progress is bad?
Its newspeak taing a wholesome word and hijacking it. You ca also progress towards destruction, progress just means moving forward, which might not be a journey of improvement.
Progressivism is self labelled though and has positive overtones, which are part of the propaganda core of the progressive movement.
As a title progressivism has a lot in common with communist ideology. The 'Great Leap Forward' may sound grand, but it was just the title of a centralised government initiative that conpounded totalitarian control and human misery.
Also Orlanth, does that little report of yours mention that Sweden has very broad rape laws which results in more crimes being classified as rape than many other western nations? Or did you forget about that?
An excuse used to belittle the figures, even with that in account the statistics are alarmingly high, and have grown by a massive proportion without a change in classification in the age of mass Islamic immigration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strombones wrote: Flying a NASCAR flag from the statehouse is the most American thing EVER.
It would be fun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/26 02:24:09
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: 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.
Please read my post again, and this time read more carefully, and if I haven’t been clear somewhere then ask for clarification. I’m happy to admit that I don’t always write as clearly as possible. But your effort here to pretend I didn’t understand your point is woeful.
If you want a tldr version – the argument that soldiers fought bravely therefore the South wasn’t evil is ridiculous, because individual moral actors do not justify the structure of a whole nation.
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.
Because of scale, both in the numbers of people affected, and the nature of the mistreatment. Seriously, this is so basic, and you’re not dumb. It is nasty and immoral to both force someone off their land and to hold them as slaves, but the latter is very obviously much, much worse. Seriously, this is so basic, and you’re not dumb, so while I don’t know why you’re choosing not to understand these things, I can only ask that you stop.
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.
Actually it was pretty unconscionable even to the people of the time. Hence the whole abolitionist movement.
It fairly well sums up the Victorian mindset frankly, and generalisations are in order to put the point across.
Oh I’m sure it was a general belief of people at the time. But you know, just ‘coz you believe it, doesn’t make it so. Which you concede later on, when acknowledging their moralism was clearly selective.
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.
If states with French heritage flew the French flag, and states with British heritage flew either the St George’s Cross or the Union Jack then you’d have a point. Of if these states flew any of the other battle flags of the confederacy. But they don’t. They fly the flag that was used as a symbol by the KKK. Pretending that it’s purely about history is absurd.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Orlanth wrote: If you believe what you wrote then the veiled guilt chain is there. How its there has explained, the fact that the need to be 'considerate' and 'mindful' is selective burden on some societal groups but not others.
Okay so to spell it out, you believe that I'm saying white people should be considerate to non-whites but that non-whites should not be considerate of whites? Or is it even further, that in your experience, you believe that non-whites are not considerate of whites?
It kinda looks that way.
When you said "We were born in racism", or something to that effect.. were you implying that we have a genetic disposition to distrust unlike colors? I remember a study that showed toddlers of around age 2 begin to understand a racial identity by at least color and accent, and if given the chance, will work together by groups. I personally think it had more to do with feeling safety in "like kind."
But when you say "Naw, were a racist society, and as racists all we should learn how to at least be polite about it, I think it's definite pessimism in the least and guilt mongering at the worst. To imply that because our great great grandfathers were among slave-owners, therefor we cannot help but be racists due to knowing "we used to own them.", is a broad sweeping generalization. Never once have I thought, "Man, gak would be better if I could just own black people. Then I could stop a lot of the violent crime in my poor neighborhood and reduce gang presence."
And yea, in my own anecdotal experience, it's entirely fine and acceptable for outright open hostility towards whites for no reason other than being white. What's worse, is the media and society refuse to label black hate crimes as hate crimes. If racism is talked about for real, then we need to get past sensitivity issues and point out that gak goes both ways.
Spoiler:
This sight may have neutrality issues, but raises a strong point. The VASTLY higher numbers for black on white crime in relation to the other way around.
Also, he calls it a Victorian mindset yet by the time of the American Civil War the UK had already abolished slavery in all of the Empire for 20 years and slavery in the British Isles themselves for over 50. Not to mention that Britain was active in encouraging other countries to do the same, with use of the Royal Navy to intercept slave ships.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/06/26 03:11:43
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
@Orlanth, my post about moral relativism was not aimed at you, but if you see it as such, feel free. And it was not an ad hominem unless you feel either moral relativism or moral absolutism are somehow slanders as opposed to descriptors (I personally don't, in either case)
Just so I know where you stand on the issue in the future, are you a moral relativist? Or do you side with the belief that in the Savior's words the Soviet Union was an "evil empire"? Or do you want to equivocate on that one?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/26 03:12:49
Thunderfrog wrote: When you said "We were born in racism", or something to that effect.. were you implying that we have a genetic disposition to distrust unlike colors?
What did I post that led you to think I was only talking about white Americans?
Thunderfrog wrote: When you said "We were born in racism", or something to that effect.. were you implying that we have a genetic disposition to distrust unlike colors?
What did I post that led you to think I was only talking about white Americans?
The quote doesn't match your question?
Anyways, please answer mine and I will answer yours.
To be honest, it was nothing you said specifically, but your general tone. I suppose it (your tone) rings similar to those who in conversation have told me that -only- whites can be racist, and that what whites perceive as "reverse racism" is not anything but us being too sensitive and terrified of losing our racist power.
To requote my question.
When you said "We were born in racism", or something to that effect.. were you implying that we have a genetic disposition to distrust unlike colors, or it's a social sickness that no one can avoid?
This is also why countries like England and France were circling like buzzards, waiting to see how things would shake up.
Thats kind of historically inaccurate. All the European nations took interest in the ACW, because it was being fought in a very different manner from the most recent European wars. Slavery was politically repulsive to both England and France, and public opinion in both tended to favor the Union (although the political elite tended to be more favorable to the CSA). In regards to cotton, the war did cause a brief cotton famine that effected the textile industry in both countries, but they had found alternative sources for the white stuff within a year of the commencement of hostilities and were no longer dependent on american product (which is perhaps part of the reason why the southern economy lagged post-war).
We have many sources that show that both France and England were having debates as to whether they should aid one side or another. Apparently the CSA went so far as to actually ask France for aid. I probably made a bit of a logical jump there... But in my eyes, I think both England and France, while actually "quietly viewing" what was going on, were actually hoping for an opening to regain lost lands. Again, it's just a thought, and I don't particularly have documentation beyond the fact that they were keeping a keen eye on proceedings.
Having actually studied it pretty extensively myself, I can tell you that you're attributing far more to it than what occurred historically. France and England both declared neutrality in the conflict. The French did inform the Brits that if the Brits were to intervene, the French would support them in it, but realistically that was never going to happen, aside from the fact that Britain wanted no part in events, France had gotten itself rather tied up in Mexico at the time (and had temporarily dragged Spain and England into things with them) and wouldnt have had the capability of getting involved with the ACW anyway. The closest things ever came to intervention was the Trent affair, which essentially provided Britain with a legitimate casus belli, which they very clearly did not take.
nkelsch wrote: 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.
I was referring to the stars and bars, as was the thread for the most part, we are right to do so.
- It is a genuine Confederate flag.
- It is the most widely known Confederate flag.
- It is a valid symbol of the Confederacy.
- It is the flag most often seen in popular culture and modern culture relating to states that once made up the Confederacy.
- It is the flag highlighted in current press controversy.
- It was not the formal national flag of the Confederate States of America.
Bro thats not the stars and bars.
THAT is the stars and bars. The only people that think the stars and bars are the other flag are people who couldnt be bothered to pay attention in history class (read: most people).
Can I take a stab at this?
I get what you're saying... I think... about the "USA is living in a racist society".
It's the word racist I think incurs very strong emotional defensive response.
How about saying, we're living in a hyphenated society.
African-American
Asian-American
Indian-American
Cuban-American
Mexican-American
and what have yous...
I think, in a roundabout way, you're saying that because we do this, we're self-segregating ourselves in a way that can be a challenge to fully assimilate.
Because, at the end of the day, we ALL should be saying that we're just AMERICANS.
Oddly enough, if you ask most peopel "what are you" they will tell you "Chinese" or "Italian" or "German and Irish", etc. but if you ask a black person (that isn't a recent immigrant) they will tell you that they're American.... just chew on that for a whiel.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Oddly enough, if you ask most peopel "what are you" they will tell you "Chinese" or "Italian" or "German and Irish", etc. but if you ask a black person (that isn't a recent immigrant) they will tell you that they're American.... just chew on that for a whiel.
That's really sad when you think about it though. All the other races can trace their history back to their country of origin, going back hundreds of years. Because of slavery blacks can only trace their roots back to their first slave ancestors in america, and I doubt they could even go that far back.
The south so proud of their heritage destroyed the heritage of their slaves.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. When I was young the flag was a symbol of rebellion, of home. Had it not been for the KLan and the wackjobs it would have really been that.
But its not. The flag has become a symbol of racism.
The flag has always been a symbol of racism. It wasn't the KKK who marched under the flag in a literal war against freedom and against democracy, it was the Confederates.
No, it absolutely was not. There is much more to the topic than the revisionist history of it being all about slavery. It was much more about economics and the fact that the southern economy depended on slavery and Northern banks held huge financial sway over them, despite the fact that the South grew one of the most vital resources of the time (cotton). Read up on the Southern Commercial Convention.
Do you think that you know better than the people that fought the war what is was over? Somewhere around 20% of southerners owned slaves and would not fight for a rich man's property. In turn when the Emancipation Proclamation was announced there were anti-black riots in the North that saw many hung in the streets and even orphanages burned to the ground. To those of the time, it was about the separation of the United States. Though, I won't argue that Slavery was a major part of it, don't kid yourself into thinking that the South was only concerned with subjugation while the North were freedom fighters. After all, Robert E Lee considered slavery evil, while McClellan hated blacks. And, even the great Emancipator himself allowed for horrendous treatment of Native Americans that included them being sold into slavery in Mexico.
The point is, this issue is far too complex to try and make blanket, black and white statements, and people aren't taught the truth of the matter because history is written by the victors. As to the issue of the flag, even though I love history, it is a symbol of separation at the least and therefore does not need to be flown on government property. Believing that everyone who takes pride in the flag is a racist though is just pure bigotry that's just as ugly as those who judge people by the color of their skin. Don't forget that we are a nation born of traitors and rebels.
Now back to what I come to the forums for...gaming.
Oddly enough, if you ask most peopel "what are you" they will tell you "Chinese" or "Italian" or "German and Irish", etc. but if you ask a black person (that isn't a recent immigrant) they will tell you that they're American.... just chew on that for a whiel.
That's really sad when you think about it though. All the other races can trace their history back to their country of origin, going back hundreds of years. Because of slavery blacks can only trace their roots back to their first slave ancestors in america, and I doubt they could even go that far back.
The south so proud of their heritage destroyed the heritage of their slaves.
It's sad but not unique. How many people from any African tribes (slave or not) could trace ancestry (DNA could probably do it) from more than two hundred years ago?
sebster wrote:
If states with French heritage flew the French flag, and states with British heritage flew either the St George’s Cross or the Union Jack then you’d have a point. Of if these states flew any of the other battle flags of the confederacy. But they don’t. They fly the flag that was used as a symbol by the KKK. Pretendi
FYI: Oklahona used to have all the flags that have ever flown over the land hanging at the plaza in front of the Capitol. One of them was the battle flag of the confederacy. There has always been talk about it and the flag was taken down back in 1998 I think. After lots of arguments the governor ordered the flags of all countries taken down and just put an Oklahoma flag on each flag pole. A few years later the Oklahoma History Center opened next to the Capitol and they included an area for all the flags there and at that time they also chose the Stars and Bars to represent the time the confederacy claimed parts of the state instead of using the battle flag.
Just throwing it out there to share how Oklahoma handled the flying of flags for historical/heritage reasons.
Manchu wrote: Nothing I have posted merits that question. My posts obviously refer to all Americans. Somehow you yourself read white guilt into what posted..
I disagree, but you've established yourself as unmoving and stand-offish, and I think you are just skimming. My question to you had nothing to do with color specifically.
You said "Everyone in this country is racist because we are born that way."
That VERY much triggers the question, why?
Do you think it's a hereditary function of choosing like kinds, or do you think it's a societal issue no one can be above?
d-usa wrote: FYI: Oklahona used to have all the flags that have ever flown over the land hanging at the plaza in front of the Capitol. One of them was the battle flag of the confederacy. There has always been talk about it and the flag was taken down back in 1998 I think. After lots of arguments the governor ordered the flags of all countries taken down and just put an Oklahoma flag on each flag pole. A few years later the Oklahoma History Center opened next to the Capitol and they included an area for all the flags there and at that time they also chose the Stars and Bars to represent the time the confederacy claimed parts of the state instead of using the battle flag.
Just throwing it out there to share how Oklahoma handled the flying of flags for historical/heritage reasons.
That's really cool, thanks for posting it.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
