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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

No problem, here is a pic:

Welcome to America, where National history can be rewritten or repressed if enough people want it to happen, or at least don't care enough to stop it from happening. All this crap like the moves by Apple and Amazon makes me sick.

Good god, pretty soon it will be like in Interstellar, where in the future school teachers will actually teach as part of their curriculum about how the Moon Landing was a propaganda lie by the evil folks at NASA and the government as part of the Cold War.

Manchu wrote:
... We started forming a racist mindset in the crib. When we look at each other, we can't help but see race and not just as some neutral social fact but with all the attendant prejudices. We need to be a bit self-aware and self-critical about these notions we've inherited from our forbears and that we pick up as we live our lives. Overcoming our racism is not about feeling guilty; it's about being mindful and considerate and reflective.

So, again, in genuine curiosity...

Do you think we are born racists, or do you think it's something we cannot help but learn because of growing up in such a racist society, and it is something no one can escape.

From SD here, Mt. Rushmore has only flown the fifty states. Crazy Horse (which ever completed, will be the most amazing statue ever known to humanity, seriously guys, check it out. It dwarfs Rushmore). We are late to the political heritage party; nonetheless, last time I was in Nashville, I got called aYankee. Forget the fact that we didn't even exist yet. He did like Sturgis though.

There is no way a reasonable, educated person could confuse the notion of forming a racist mindset with a genetic issue.

What I posted remains clear: we live in a thoroughly racist society and for that reason cannot help but have a racist mindset.

From that point, you and Orlanth went on a tirade about white guilt ... which didn't have anything to do with what I said. But it is pretty telling, I think, that you assume the suggestion that people be considerate and reflective is somehow anti-white or that it wouldn't apply to non-whites.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

That is because stars and bars actually represents the confederacy, and was what was used at the time. The southern cross was never raised as a symbol officially or unofficially as a symbol of the confederacy during the actual time period. The southern cross battle standard was used in a small number of battles as a battle standard so it would be visually distinguishable from Stars and Stripes. (The us flag at the time)

The southern cross was never a symbol of southern heritage, it has always from the onset been "the flag for the white man" and when Mississippi changed their state flag close to 40 years after the civil war ended to include thee southern cross, it was done to show blacks "remember who is in charge", and again during segregation as opposition to integration.

Funny how when Mississippi changed their flag to the southern cross, it was peachy, but to change away from it is destroying tradition?

Oklahoma has it right. The only flag which has ever stood for the confederacy and southern heritage has been stars and bars. To ignorantly misappropriate the legitimate legacy of stars and bars and attach it to the southern cross to legitimize its use is out of line and not supported by history, even if it is supported by modern day ignorance.

Modern day ignorance= modern day reality. Not an excuse, not a reasoning, just a reality

 CptJake wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


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

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

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

La Raza isn't really a U.S. Institution.

But the TINY number of supporters in the USA have not contributed to political parties as a rule. Same thing with the Black Panthers.

Both collectively don't even make up a percentage of the numbers of White Supremacists.

PLUS... The Black Panthers and La Raza are, as a rule, NOT "Latin/Blaxk Supremacists." They have other issues which tend to be problematic.

Also, La Raza in Spain is just another White Supremacist group.

This is yet another attempt to point at an exception and try to make it a rule. It is sort of like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because someone once survived doing so.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

The Stars and Bars is just as reprehensible as is the cross.

Both are flags representing a traitorous regime who wished to own Black Men as slaved, which they saw as being "less than animals," and further claimed this as their divine, God-given right.

That makes either flag a symbol of an evil ideology.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

Flags are not JUST a "thing."

They are symbols, loaded with meaning.

Trying to pretend otherwise is willfully ignoring the definitions of words in common usage.

MB

I've always just thought of the flag as being an easy visual identifier for the person you would most likely turn to if you need a pick up truck to tow you out of mud, or help with getting something blown up real good.

::shrug::

Surely there is an appropriate amount of time before you can stop feeling guilty about historical deeds? Everyone involved in the ACW is long since dead.

(says the non-American)

Do people understand that Cultural Relativism is a BAD THING?

There might be societies that have a variety of conditions that allow for human thriving, but this does NOT MEAN that ANYTHING is acceptable as a moral or ethical value, no matter how much of a population subscribes to it.

Some thing remain wrong regardless of when, where, how, or why they are done.

MB

As modern people we recognise that slavery has always been a fundamental insult to humanity, whenever and wherever it was practised.

One can study history and recognise that in Roman times, slavery was a normal part of many societies and therefore we cannot condemn Romans by their own social standards for holding slaves. Even so, Roman attitudes towards slaves changed during their history and slaves gradually were granted more rights, showing that some kind of moral recognition of slaves as human beings was an element even of Roman society.

In the case of the Confederacy, as people have pointed out above, by mid-Victorian times slavery had already come to be seen as a moral evil by most advanced, "civilised" countries. The Confederate States had to do a lot of special pleading to justify their desire and need to continue with it. Therefore it would not be cultural relativism for 21st century people to blame the Confederates as slave-holders.

I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?

America has a capital city named after a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson was another slave owner, to name a few.

And what about Native Americans? If there's one group in US history that has arguably suffered more than African Americans, then its Native Americans.

I watched a BBC documentary on the subject and a lot of them consider these symbols to be offensive: Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the 2nd Infantry division, Chicago Blackhawks?? etc etc

They feel their culture is mocked and trivialised, as it has been depicted on everything from cigarette packets to chocolate bars.

And don't get them started on 1950s Westerns!!

Like I say, there a ton of symbols in modern America that can be seen as historically 'embarrassing.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As modern people we recognise that slavery has always been a fundamental insult to humanity, whenever and wherever it was practised.

One can study history and recognise that in Roman times, slavery was a normal part of many societies and therefore we cannot condemn Romans by their own social standards for holding slaves. Even so, Roman attitudes towards slaves changed during their history and slaves gradually were granted more rights, showing that some kind of moral recognition of slaves as human beings was an element even of Roman society.

In the case of the Confederacy, as people have pointed out above, by mid-Victorian times slavery had already come to be seen as a moral evil by most advanced, "civilised" countries. The Confederate States had to do a lot of special pleading to justify their desire and need to continue with it. Therefore it would not be cultural relativism for 21st century people to blame the Confederates as slave-holders.

In Victorian times, they may have considered slavery a moral evil, but that didn't stop them from thinking they could lord it over Africans with colonialism, and when you consider some of the more bizarre theories the Victorians had on non-white people, I don't think they could take the moral high ground.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


In Victorian times, they may have considered slavery a moral evil, but that didn't stop them from thinking they could lord it over Africans with colonialism, and when you consider some of the more bizarre theories the Victorians had on non-white people, I don't think they could take the moral high ground.

True, but that was neither the point made nor searched for.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/25/apple-removes-historical-war-games-confederate-flag

This is getting daft now. Apple have removed any Historical strategy games from their store that feature the flag. Surely in the context of the actual Civil War the flag is perfectly appropriate? I don't see how anyone could object to this unless they wanted to indulge in sinister historical revisionism.

 Strombones wrote:
Flying a NASCAR flag from the statehouse is the most American thing EVER.

Only if you soaked it into an apple pie and then beat the gak out of it with a baseball bat.

Actually, scratch that. The most American thing EVER is football, because the rest of the world plays soccer and call it football .

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's certainly a cultural disintegration going on in Sweden;

You will be fine. You have Maddelisk. You can only be fine with Maddelisk .

Prestor Jon wrote:
The Japanese committed atrocities against Americans under that flag, I have relatives and friends' relatives that wre maimed and killed by them. The US govt locked up Americans of Japanese heritage in internment camps and confiscated their property. Yet after the war we managed to move on and didn't need to use public shaming and peer pressure to dissuade anyone from owning or displaying a Japanese flag.

 Orlanth wrote:
First the Confederate were not comperable to the Nazis

These are pretty interesting. Notice how Imperial Japan was certainly not friendly to U.S. soldiers, yet they never actually set foot in the U.S. to do anything like the terrible, terrible crimes they committed against the civil populations of Korea, China, …
Holding an Imperial Japanese flag in Korea or China will be much, much more controversial there.
Similarly, the slavery as it was done in the U.S. was really a gruesome, terrible thing that, yes, was comparable what the Nazis and Imperial Japan did in term of dehumanization. It was not the same, but definitely comparable. I think quite a few people in this discussion are seeing the Confederate battle flag in the same way they see the Imperial Japan flag, i.e. we should recognize it as the symbol of a valiant enemy. Not in the same way as most Koreans or Chinese peoples see the Imperial Japan, i.e. as the symbol of an obscene regime that committed countless atrocities.
And even Japan, who does not rank very high on the war crimes penance (certainly way below Germany at least), understood they had to change their flag after the war. The South should find itself a new flag, one not associated with crimes against humanity.

Japan never changed their flag... it has been the red dot thing since before and after the war.

The flag you are thinking of was the flag of the imperial army, they still use one very similar it's just not centered.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As modern people we recognise that slavery has always been a fundamental insult to humanity, whenever and wherever it was practised.

One can study history and recognise that in Roman times, slavery was a normal part of many societies and therefore we cannot condemn Romans by their own social standards for holding slaves. Even so, Roman attitudes towards slaves changed during their history and slaves gradually were granted more rights, showing that some kind of moral recognition of slaves as human beings was an element even of Roman society.

In the case of the Confederacy, as people have pointed out above, by mid-Victorian times slavery had already come to be seen as a moral evil by most advanced, "civilised" countries. The Confederate States had to do a lot of special pleading to justify their desire and need to continue with it. Therefore it would not be cultural relativism for 21st century people to blame the Confederates as slave-holders.

Replace slavery with "murder and rape" and you will understand that just because it was OK with them did not make it OK as a rule.

Or, replace "Romans" with "Third Reich" and "Slavery" with "Killing Jews......"

Slavery was still wrong, even though it was widely practiced and accepted by the Romans.

All this means is that the Romans sucked at being able to maximize the potential of their population, because they were ethically monsters, still.

Their "practices," no matter how broadly accepted, caused horrific suffering to most of the population, including the slave owners.

This was the basic message of The Enlightenment. And the whole "Cultural Relativism" package (along with Post-Modernism, which spawned it) is simply a Reactinary Philosophy that came about due to people being unable to cope with the realities that Industrialization brought about (and the belief that The Enlightenment was essentially a failed concept).

Moral absolutism does not mean that there is a list of morals that are absolutely right, it means that there is a list of absolutely wrong things. This is where the Moral Absolutists of the various religious ideologies diverge from reality and lack any foundation from the Moral Absolutists of Modern Philosophy that recognize a variety of means for human well-being and thriving, yet also recognize that some things are simply excluded (Absolutely) from the list of things that allow humanity to thrive. One claims absolute prescriptions, while the only claims absolute proscriptions. The former is flawed, and without foundation, while the latter IS the foundation.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Japan never changed their flag... it has been the red dot thing since before and after the war.

The flag you are thinking of was the flag of the imperial army, they still use one very similar it's just not centered.

Nope.

Prior to the War it was a Red Dot with streaming Rays coming from it.

After the war it was simply the Dot.

MB

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?

Obviously we will cross the bridges if and when we come to them.

 LuciusAR wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/25/apple-removes-historical-war-games-confederate-flag

This is getting daft now. Apple have removed any Historical strategy games from their store that feature the flag. Surely in the context of the actual Civil War the flag is perfectly appropriate? I don't see how anyone could object to this unless they wanted to indulge in sinister historical revisionism.

Apple have taken a quick, easy way out of the controversy. Either they will restore the games later, after reconsidering the situation, or the publishers will have to update them with revised content (it's not a big change for an online game.)

Obviously the first option is the best, to maintain historical accuracy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?

America has a capital city named after a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson was another slave owner, to name a few.

And what about Native Americans? If there's one group in US history that has arguably suffered more than African Americans, then its Native Americans.

I watched a BBC documentary on the subject and a lot of them consider these symbols to be offensive: Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the 2nd Infantry division, Chicago Blackhawks?? etc etc

They feel their culture is mocked and trivialised, as it has been depicted on everything from cigarette packets to chocolate bars.

And don't get them started on 1950s Westerns!!

Like I say, there a ton of symbols in modern America that can be seen as historically 'embarrassing.

Are you really that blind to the intentions and philosophical foundations of the various agencies at question here:

• The Confederacy: Founded on the idea that all men are NOT EQUAL; that some men are granted superiority by GOD over all others,and that some THINGS that only look like men (but are actually less than "animals") must be placed under the complete dominion of "Human Beings" (this is read by the Confederacy as "White men from Europe Only") in the institution of perpetual slavery; that "Human beings" have SOME RIGHTS (dictated by their God given status. Rich people have been blessed by God, and are those his "chosen," deserving more rights, while the poor, being out of favor with God, deserve fewer rights), while "things" that just "look" like humans (and have Black Skin) have no rights at all.

The Confederacy COMPLETELY LIVED UP TO THEIR CLAIMS. I.e. They were completely evil in that regard.

• The USA (including Thomas Jefferson): Founded on the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.

The USA did not always live up to that intention, but the changes to our Constitution tend to reflect times when we realized "Oops! We F-Ed UP! We better change things to make it up to those we have wronged."

Are you REALLY unable to see a distinction between those two entities, and the philosophies behind them?

MB

 sebster wrote:

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.

Calling a nation state evil places a moral distinction between itself and others, especially when the case is a mopralistic high point by another culture.

Slavery was wrong, but so was colonialism. The Confederates were a symptom of the age.

Why that is not a tu quoque argument.
While other nations abuses do not excuse the Confederacy the Confederacy is being singled out as evil wheras their morality was at a par with others. The judgement is partisan, not absolute. While it would be logical to condemn all colonial powers including the Confederacy, this is not what history does, it picks and chooses for political ends.
Moral judgement of 19th century nation states is selective and arbitrary and on those grounds it is more moral and just not to condemn the Confederacy on the grounds that the finger pointing is political and has a hypocritical source which will not be placed under similiar scritiny and for whose benefit the scrutiny iwas and still is absent.



This is anything but a black and white issue (sic), its far more complex. A Confederate patriot, even a Confederate industrialist or plantation owner is on a moral par with their contemporaries in other nations of the time. Many believed in the justice of their cause, rough and smooth, in well intentioned terms; others less so.
It is wrong to look at this with 21st century eyes and say slavery = bad, colonial rape = not quite as bad. There is a slim kernel of truth to that, but its far from enough to pass a moral distinction.

 sebster wrote:

Actually it was pretty unconscionable even to the people of the time. Hence the whole abolitionist movement.

A two dimensional view at best.
Some abolitionism is moral. Wilberforce for example led the British anti-slavery movement on erthical grounds. The British became vehement anti-slavers. However the clerics who started the moral movements for ethical ends were only a portion of the movement. Most abolitionist movements had other ends. The Royal Navy did not extend massive patrols and anti slavery operations because of innate goodness, they did so because it gutted Yankee trade in the Atlantic. As the British were at the time enslaving India there is no moral high ground there, no matter how many slave forts they burned and how many blacks they freed.
Also the British understood the difference between emancipation and freedom, and have for a long time. It was harshly practiced on them.
Likewise the Union were not abolitionist on point of principle but on point of advantage.



The above is just an example, it was not part of the face memory of the time, but it shows conveniently that a slave and a free culture are often just symantically different.
As a good example of this, when did blacks stop being second class citizens in the United States. You would be naive to claim that happened in 1863. African Americans like the Anglo Saxons have discovered that servitude extends in other ways. You cant however blame the Confederacy for that.

 sebster wrote:

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.

The situation can be summed up as thus.

Confederate slavery is evil, says the Union. We will liberate.
Yet despite dispatching the Confederacy quickly in historical terms, giving a feth about anything resembling racial equality was not a priority for over a century afterwards. You cant blame the Confederacy for that, it no longer existed. The Union moral high ground was entirely false. Emancipation is somethign lip service was given to.
The British and the French both liberated slaves in Africa and abolished the salve trade within their Empires. Formally there was no slavery permitted in the British Empire. Anyone see the
error in that statement?
Yet to a Victorian it was entirely true, blacks would not be taken from homes put in chains and marched by slavers, that horror was spared them when the European colonial powers moved in. Instead they got to work on the colonial plantations erected by white Imperial masters on their own lands.

 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. Pretending that it’s purely about history is absurd.

It is anything but absurd. The Confederate Battle Flag was historical, as was the stars and bars, though the former is what we normally see. Yes the KKK decided to use it, but the KKK were post ACW, they were not around during the Confederacy but emerged afterwards.

It is ignorant to say the Confederate Battle flag is the flag of the KKK while denying that it was also the standard of the Army of Northern Virginia, its premiere and most historically important military formation, and also served the base of the revised national flag, twice.

It is clearly a case that the symbol is a genuine historical Confederate symbol, which is public domain and was used by the KKK amongst others, including the Democrats while campaigning to elect Clinton and Obama. It is highly selective to highlight one unofficial usage and claim it represents it all, even worse to deny its actual source.

BeAfraid wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?

America has a capital city named after a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson was another slave owner, to name a few.

And what about Native Americans? If there's one group in US history that has arguably suffered more than African Americans, then its Native Americans.

I watched a BBC documentary on the subject and a lot of them consider these symbols to be offensive: Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the 2nd Infantry division, Chicago Blackhawks?? etc etc

They feel their culture is mocked and trivialised, as it has been depicted on everything from cigarette packets to chocolate bars.

And don't get them started on 1950s Westerns!!

Like I say, there a ton of symbols in modern America that can be seen as historically 'embarrassing.

Are you really that blind to the intentions and philosophical foundations of the various agencies at question here:

• The Confederacy: Founded on the idea that all men are NOT EQUAL; that some men are granted superiority by GOD over all others,and that some THINGS that only look like men (but are actually less than "animals") must be placed under the complete dominion of "Human Beings" (this is read by the Confederacy as "White men from Europe Only") in the institution of perpetual slavery; that "Human beings" have SOME RIGHTS (dictated by their God given status. Rich people have been blessed by God, and are those his "chosen," deserving more rights, while the poor, being out of favor with God, deserve fewer rights), while "things" that just "look" like humans (and have Black Skin) have no rights at all.

The Confederacy COMPLETELY LIVED UP TO THEIR CLAIMS. I.e. They were completely evil in that regard.

• The USA (including Thomas Jefferson): Founded on
The USA did not always live up to that intention, but the changes to our Constitution tend to reflect times when we realized "Oops! We F-Ed UP! We better change things to make it up to those we have wronged."
the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.

Are you REALLY unable to see a distinction between those two entities, and the philosophies behind them?

MB

Strawman.

My points were dealing with the Native American issue and the use of symbols that feature them in a derogatory way.

Native Americans object to being called redskins, and yet, a prominent team from Washington is named just that.

I used the example of the Chicago Blackhawks earlier. The actions of a small segment of their fans ( 'blacking up' as Native Americans) wouldn't last five minutes in the UK.

To address your historical points, its fair to say that "the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc." would be better changed to the principle that SOME men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.

That better reflects historical accuracy.

Years ago, I was surprised to learn that the British army, during the revolution, freed thousands of slaves, used them in their army, and had the majority of Native Americans on their side. Stark contrast to what the Continental Army had.

BeAfraid wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


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

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

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

La Raza isn't really a U.S. Institution.

But the TINY number of supporters in the USA have not contributed to political parties as a rule. Same thing with the Black Panthers.

Both collectively don't even make up a percentage of the numbers of White Supremacists.

PLUS... The Black Panthers and La Raza are, as a rule, NOT "Latin/Blaxk Supremacists." They have other issues which tend to be problematic.

Also, La Raza in Spain is just another White Supremacist group.

This is yet another attempt to point at an exception and try to make it a rule. It is sort of like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because someone once survived doing so.

MB

Man you are a goal post stretching son of a gun.

Your post which I replied to was pretty clear, you stated: "IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP."

That is false. The NCLR (La Raza) sprung from the Chicano movement and has nothing in the context of my post to do with Spain, and I am pretty sure you're smart enough to know that. The SPLC calls the New Black Panther Party "The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."


Size of the organization has nothing to do with your original statement. The New Black Panthers with clubs 'guarding' a voting site in 2008 did not have a Klan equivalent. Sometimes an organization can have influence well beyond its size.

These are not 'exceptions that prove the rule'. They are examples that show you are talking from a position of ignorance.

I'll start off by saying that this entire post probably is off-topic, tangentially related to the topic because Orlanth's crusade against PC-ism seems based on misinformation.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.
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

That's so full of gak that I almost don't know where to begin, but I'll give it a shot anyway:

Starting off, the claim that 76% of sexual offenders in Sweden have a foreign background is simply stated as a fact. There's no source listed for it, and considering that official statistics don't take the ethnicity or nationality into account I'm going to call bullgak on that one.

Secondly, Sweden has one of the broadest definitions of rape in the world. Of bloody course there's going to be more reported rapes when the concept covers a bigger area. As such, comparisons between countries is very difficult, as the same concept means different things in different nations. You'd know this if you'd actually studied the topic instead of spouting partisan bullgak on Dakka all the time.

https://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/news-from-bra/archive/news/2011-01-18-how-common-is-rape-in-sweden-compared-to-other-european-countries.html

 Orlanth wrote:


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.
.

He's no longer in office, and he caught a metric gak-ton of flak for what he said. I'm going to be generous and call that a case of you being misinformed rather than it being an outright lie.

Sources in Swedish:
http://www.sydsvenskan.se/malmo/reepalus-sprak-ar-antisemitiskt/

http://www.expressen.se/kvp/reepalu-gor-en-pudel/

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

http://swedenreport.org/2014/10/29/swedish-police-55-official-no-go-zones/

The police never said there were any "no-go zones", so that's another instance of you being woefully ill-informed, at best, and spreading lies, at worst. What the report (in Swedish) said was that there are areas in Sweden where organized crime has a negative impact on the everyday lives of locals. The report further contains recommendations of how to reverse this development. The "no-go zone" part has, as far as I've been able to discern, been spread across the internet by people like yourself in order to advance your own agenda. That's dishonesty number three, out of three possible so far.

 Orlanth wrote:

4. Journalists who criticise the progressive concensus are being hounded and labelled.

Who needs freedom of speech when you have progressivism. You have the cultural paradise right, so when things go wrong just dont talk about it.

http://www.thelocal.dk/20140629/danes-want-swedes-to-break-spiral-of-silence
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/fjordman/swedens-totalitarian-face/

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.

Considering how poorly documented your other points were, I think it's pretty brave of you to call your points "well documented". I will, however, agree with you on the fact that there's, to some extent, a sort of tribalism to the debate climate (not just for journalists), where stepping out of line means that you get heavily criticized, but there's also a bunch of people that, such as yourself, clearly don't know how to source their material properly.

In summary: three blatantly misleading (or outright lying) points, and one where there could've actually been an interesting discussion if if weren't for the fact that you're spouting nonsense most of the time.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?

America has a capital city named after a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson was another slave owner, to name a few.

And what about Native Americans? If there's one group in US history that has arguably suffered more than African Americans, then its Native Americans.

I watched a BBC documentary on the subject and a lot of them consider these symbols to be offensive: Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the 2nd Infantry division, Chicago Blackhawks?? etc etc

They feel their culture is mocked and trivialised, as it has been depicted on everything from cigarette packets to chocolate bars.

And don't get them started on 1950s Westerns!!

Like I say, there a ton of symbols in modern America that can be seen as historically 'embarrassing.

Are you really that blind to the intentions and philosophical foundations of the various agencies at question here:

• The Confederacy: Founded on the idea that all men are NOT EQUAL; that some men are granted superiority by GOD over all others,and that some THINGS that only look like men (but are actually less than "animals") must be placed under the complete dominion of "Human Beings" (this is read by the Confederacy as "White men from Europe Only") in the institution of perpetual slavery; that "Human beings" have SOME RIGHTS (dictated by their God given status. Rich people have been blessed by God, and are those his "chosen," deserving more rights, while the poor, being out of favor with God, deserve fewer rights), while "things" that just "look" like humans (and have Black Skin) have no rights at all.

The Confederacy COMPLETELY LIVED UP TO THEIR CLAIMS. I.e. They were completely evil in that regard.

• The USA (including Thomas Jefferson): Founded on
The USA did not always live up to that intention, but the changes to our Constitution tend to reflect times when we realized "Oops! We F-Ed UP! We better change things to make it up to those we have wronged."
the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.

Are you REALLY unable to see a distinction between those two entities, and the philosophies behind them?

MB

Strawman.

My points were dealing with the Native American issue and the use of symbols that feature them in a derogatory way.

Native Americans object to being called redskins, and yet, a prominent team from Washington is named just that.

I used the example of the Chicago Blackhawks earlier. The actions of a small segment of their fans ( 'blacking up' as Native Americans) wouldn't last five minutes in the UK.

To address your historical points, its fair to say that "the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc." would be better changed to the principle that SOME men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.

That better reflects historical accuracy.

Years ago, I was surprised to learn that the British army, during the revolution, freed thousands of slaves, used them in their army, and had the majority of Native Americans on their side. Stark contrast to what the Continental Army had.

1) It isn't a Strawman to take the words of Confederates at face value, which is where I found the description of the Confederacy (From both Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech" and from the writings of the Theologists used by Stephens to draw up the Founding Documents of the Confederates.

2) I did address the issue of Native Americans and Thomas Jefferson.

They are subsumed in the mistakes made by the USA, which conflict with the Intentions of the Founders.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


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

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

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

La Raza isn't really a U.S. Institution.

But the TINY number of supporters in the USA have not contributed to political parties as a rule. Same thing with the Black Panthers.

Both collectively don't even make up a percentage of the numbers of White Supremacists.

PLUS... The Black Panthers and La Raza are, as a rule, NOT "Latin/Blaxk Supremacists." They have other issues which tend to be problematic.

Also, La Raza in Spain is just another White Supremacist group.

This is yet another attempt to point at an exception and try to make it a rule. It is sort of like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because someone once survived doing so.

MB

Man you are a goal post stretching son of a gun.

Your post which I replied to was pretty clear, you stated: "IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP."

That is false. The NCLR (La Raza) sprung from the Chicano movement and has nothing in the context of my post to do with Spain, and I am pretty sure you're smart enough to know that. The SPLC calls the New Black Panther Party "The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."


Size of the organization has nothing to do with your original statement. The New Black Panthers with clubs 'guarding' a voting site in 2008 did not have a Klan equivalent. Sometimes an organization can have influence well beyond its size.

These are not 'exceptions that prove the rule'. They are examples that show you are talking from a position of ignorance.

Having looked up both, neither have made contributions to Political Parties.

Any attempts by the NBPP have been returned, and La Raza does not support Democratic Hispanic Candidates. They have run their own candidates in LA and Arizona (and lost, apparently).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is another episode like the GOP freaking out about a Democrat caught having sex, and then failing to understand why it isn't an issue.

MB

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
He's no longer in office, and he caught a metric gak-ton of flak for what he said.

Still shows some of your politicians are just full of gak. Which makes them pretty similar to our politicians. And, I am sure, most politicians around the world. Is that an epidemic ?

BeAfraid wrote:
They are subsumed in the mistakes made by the USA, which conflict with the Intentions of the Founders.

Intentions or lip service, whichever you want to believe.

 Orlanth wrote:
While other nations abuses do not excuse the Confederacy the Confederacy is being singled out as evil wheras their morality was at a par with others.

Oh but there is an obvious reason for that. It is because the Confederacy did not live long enough to be anything beyond the people that were willing to go to war to protect slavery. If they had, this would be one dirty part of their history, like many countries have dirty part of their history. As it stands, this is the whole of their history.

 Orlanth wrote:
Slavery can be 'justified' by literalist short reading of the Bible (i.e not looking for the actual meaning of a passage) and religious texts of the time.

I just so love how “the actual meaning of [religious text]” actually means “what I want [religious text] to mean”. Notice how the “actual meaning” is never something that makes the person talking uncomfortable, always something that he agrees on.

 Orlanth wrote:
Due to the way societies worked in the 19th century a moral case for slavery could be made at face value, and often was.

If that moral case was based on religion, we can all hold this against religions then. They allow moral cases for utterly abhorrent crimes against humanity to be made. That is not really a good thing.

 Orlanth wrote:
Evil is a conscious choice, if people are indoctrinated into doing what some think as evil but they are taught as good, are they being evil? […] A Confederate patriot, even a Confederate industrialist or plantation owner is on a moral par with their contemporaries in other nations of the time. Many believed in the justice of their cause, rough and smooth, in well intentioned terms; others less so.

In every message you make, you always, always take the point of view of the “European” (I include any American of European descent and culture in there, in opposition to native Americans, because pretending that a WASP is not European in culture is a bit silly). Never the point of view of the black slave, or the colonized people. It is always about if the European guy believe that was he was fighting for was right, but never about how if the black slave felt about how the European guy went to war to make sure he stayed enslaved…

As bad as slavery was (and still is - mostly in the middle east and Africa, but still in the US), the vast majority of people who fought for the South did not own slaves. From the 1860 census - 4.8 percent of southern whites owned one or more slaves. Another little known fact - the Slavic peoples of Europe (my ancestors) were captured as slaves so frequently that that is where the word "slave" came from.

http://newobserveronline.com/hidden-facts-about-slavery-in-america/

But by all means.. keep claiming that the civil war was about slavery.

I have no issue with the flag. It should not be flown on a government building but anywhere else it is just gravy. Just as walking around wearing a shirt that says "I worship Satan" is 100% legal and fine.

Also - if you think the confederates were "evil" or something - try reading some unbiased history about it. Confederate generals could have sacked Washington and taken over the north with relative ease at the beginning of the war. They didn't do it because they didn't want to destroy their own country and were hoping for a political end to the war. It was Lincoln and the Northern generals that took no qualms to sacking cities and committing total war against the south. It wasn't about slavery ether. It was 100% an economic issue.

Economic issue? I guess taking away slave labor is a pretty big economic issue.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Economic issue? I guess taking away slave labor is a pretty big economic issue.

Only 4.8% of whites owned slaves in the South. Over 25% of Free blacks owned slaves in the South. Slavery had nothing to do with the color of their skin.