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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except even at the time of the ACW many of the big players in the colonial world had already brought in the abolition of slavery.

So even without applying our modern standards but rather the standards of the time at which the ACW happened, slavery was still wrong and evil.

Many, but not all, and apparently not very many in the South.

Naturally, I side more with the north, as slavery I do view slavery as being wrong. That said, I see the "reasoning" behind why the South wanted to maintain the status quo. I disagree with it, but I can see the "logic" behind it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'm happy to be in the minority when the majority is in denial.

I think it's absurd to blame German civilians for anything associated with the holocaust. I hope I am not in the miniority on that one. Innocent people in fear for their lives are victims and they should feel no guilt. What is the proper exchange rate for freed slaves to war casualties? Preferably 0. If we elected some responsible leadership instead of a blood thirsty tyrant - there never would have been a civil war - slavery would have dissipated on its own over time - like it has everywhere else in the civilized world without the need for almost a million dead. Then again when one side is morally superior - you can just blame the other side for all the dead so no guilt should be given to yourself...it is a joke. Oh yeah - those immigrants? Those were my people. I'm sure they would have been happy to work fields instead of fight a stupid war - there was no other way?


The north blockaded the southern ports and used a steady supply of immigrants to beat down the south.

You know what a smart a fair leader would have done? Buy all the slaves from the south, then let them use the cheap labor of immigrants to ween them off slavery in a tapered system. Anything is better than all out war and there is always alternatives to it.

Talk about being in denial, your post takes the cake. Revisionist history indeed.

The elected a blood thirsty tyrant? no, the southern states instead of trying to work out their issues, turned traitor and fled before lincoln even took office. No there was no other way, the south instigated the ACW by leaving and declaring the only way they'd come back is through war. The south didn't want to hear the alternatives, they feared what lincoln might do and left turned against america.

 Polonius wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The general public opinion of the time of the Confederacy was against slavery, though, as it was recognised as an evil.

That really depends how wide a lens you use. In industrializing areas, such as europe and the British Empire, it was seen as increasingly disasteful. Big pockets of people saw it as evil, but even then, it was seen as more acceptable for Black people due to the scientific racism of the time. The Islamic world still had slavery, as did chunks of asia. And serfdom was nearly equivilent.

That said, the British government, and many people, saw the institution in a negative enough light to preclude any intervention on behalf of the CSA. There's a story that even the laid off textile workers supported the union, as while they were idle without Southern Cotton, they felt slavery was worth fighting against.

I am using a lens that includes the Confederate states in the same category as what would have been called First World in the 1970s. In other words, a fairly "advanced" country that was similar in terms of heritage and tradition of culture, laws and religion, etc.

At any rate it would be difficult convincingly to claim the CSA had more culturally in common with Russia, the Ottoman Empire or the Sudan than with Britain, France and the northern USA.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The general public opinion of the time of the Confederacy was against slavery, though, as it was recognised as an evil.

That really depends how wide a lens you use. In industrializing areas, such as europe and the British Empire, it was seen as increasingly disasteful. Big pockets of people saw it as evil, but even then, it was seen as more acceptable for Black people due to the scientific racism of the time. The Islamic world still had slavery, as did chunks of asia. And serfdom was nearly equivilent.

That said, the British government, and many people, saw the institution in a negative enough light to preclude any intervention on behalf of the CSA. There's a story that even the laid off textile workers supported the union, as while they were idle without Southern Cotton, they felt slavery was worth fighting against.

I am using a lens that includes the Confederate states in the same category as what would have been called First World in the 1970s. In other words, a fairly "advanced" country that was similar in terms of heritage and tradition of culture, laws and religion, etc.

At any rate it would be difficult convincingly to claim the CSA had more culturally in common with Russia, the Ottoman Empire or the Sudan than with Britain, France and the northern USA.

Sure, I was more clariying/qualifying than arguing. The CSA would certianly only want to see itself compared with Western/Central Europe and North America, I'm sure.

Brazil is a bit of a corner case, having a handful of new world slave territitories doesn't change the general view in civilized society.

BeAfraid wrote:


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

A few pages back but... no you are wrong.

No the dot has been around since 1870 (well before that too as early 1500s etc) according to the internet, the flag with the rays is a military flag (but is also considered even today a variant of the flag), which is still used today just offset not centered.However the normal dot flag is now centered and not offset but apparently that was a 1% correction... so no difference.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Now you're definitely projecting.

No. I am being sarcastic. I thought it was obvious.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Obviously there are less than good people who owned slaves who didn't treat their "property" all that well.

In what kind of world are you living? It was not “bad people” that made the life of slaves hell. It was slavery as the institution was designed. As you put it yourself so well, slave owner were being justified by society to make slave's life hell.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
What I'm saying is that, when you look at the institution, and the society as a whole, the very people perpetrating these acts were morally "justified" by their own logic. What was "right" back then, obviously wasn't right, and there was a war to try and fix it.

The nazi were justified by their own logic too. Really, they were. Their logic was terrible. By Daesh logic, Daesh is justified too. And this is happening right now. Saying “they are justified by their logic” is a very, very poor excuse.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Again, the people who were owning slaves and had lives which were only economically viable, felt that they were morally on the high ground.

Nazi felt they were morally on the high ground. Islamists all think they are on the moral high ground.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
there values and "morality" are that alien to what we view today.

So what? Does that mean you cannot judge them? Uh yes you can, and you should.

chaos0xomega wrote:


Bro thats not the stars and bars.

I did mean the battle flag and not the national flag, but will admit that I misunderstood which was actually the stars and bars. Correction accepted.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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).

Or those who are not American.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

An interesting observation, and one that encourages a more lenient view. Th Confederacy had it pesisted would have had the opportunity to be known for other things.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

Grossly unfair statement. The Bible has correct interpretation, however the interpretation is deep, it is a matter of reestablishing the consistency of the positive message.
As for always interpreting by agreement is frankly off and offensive. That is exactly what the fundamentalists did. The Bible contains many restrictions that I would rather wish were not rue, could try and reinterpret in a more agreeable way but will not due to conscience.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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.

As the moral case for abolition came from the churches it would be hard to push the blame this way.
The New Testament includes passages on being a Christian slave, and on being a Christian master. Its actually very clearly written. Slavery is 'not recommended', master are encouraged to shelter to use their privilege to shelter slaves from society and salves are encouraged to seek their freedom through lawful means, Combining the two properly as they are part of the same command it would mean that good masters can buy and own slaves, mostly because it is better they did than others. The slaves owned should not have to worry about their futures but were encouraged to pay back the investment and seek freedom, this therefore meant that the offer of a fair price of freedom for an individual slaves was an expectation.
In the context of Roman law, this was practical and liberal, encouraged emancipation on an individual level, in a society where national emancipation wasn't a practical goal.
The above is open to deliberate misinterpretation, but the text is clear.

 Orlanth wrote:

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…

I do indeed take the view of the European and descendant cultures, because they are relevant to the topic. The topic at hand was on national culpability, which in the 19th century depended on the attitides of the white males who were the de facto powerbase and not on any ethnic group alongside them. The opinions of blacks in say France in th 19th century is interesting for the poltical record, but had negligible bearing on the policies of colonial France. The same applies to all the powers.
I am not dismissive of other cultures, they were not relevant, especially individual feelings, with reference to looking at the moral culture of Victorian age western nation states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 treslibras wrote:

 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.

For me it was, and is fair evidence that singling out the Confederacy as 'evil' is grossly unfair and whitewashes the historical record.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
there values and "morality" are that alien to what we view today.

So what? Does that mean you cannot judge them? Uh yes you can, and you should.

I'm an "amateur" historian, in school to basically become a "professional", as well as a teacher. I can only judge based on hypotheticals... If that were going on today, with today's viewpoints and morals, absolutely I'd be judging the feth out of them, because we do that everyday with IS, Russia, China and nearly every country across the world. I would also suggest that if you were an adult, living in say, 1855 in South Carolina, you absolutely would own, or would be aspiring to own slaves, because that was the societal norm, and societal pressure at that time.

Was it wrong? Well, we went to war over it didn't we? and I would say that the "right" side won.

Offending people is too easy. Lets just combine all the offensive ones. Point is, I think there's a lot of knee-jerk happening here. Hell, Apple removed all historical games that had the flag in it.

Warning - Super ultra offensive picture in there.

deleted because I am well and truly wrong

aronthomas17 wrote:
Can I just begin by saying I am not American.

Where I'm from (Yorkshire, UK) our government buildings display the Yorkshire flag, which is a flag adopted during the "war of the roses" so in essence is a Yorkshire "battle flag". A war we ended up losing. No one takes offence to this, there is even now a Yorkshire Day.

I don't think imo that its much different to a confederate "battle flag" being flown above government buildings, the flag represents the people, ALL the people, of the state/county it is flown over, I would argue keep the flag, the flag isn't racist (as far as I am aware) It's not a Nazi flag, so not a symbol of white power...

Like the Yorkshire flag its surely a symbol of regionalism and identity other than just being an American or being English, your also Southern, or in the case of Yorkshire, Northern.

I'll let the american members here go into more detail but you're wrong.

There is a huge difference between the flags from the Wars of the Roses and a flag which represents a government which sought to split from its country based entirely on the fact that it wanted to continue the evil of slavery.

I apologise for my awful understanding of American history :(

aronthomas17 wrote:
I apologise for my awful understanding of American history :(

It's OK. We don't expect everyone to know everything from every bit of history in the world. Maybe next time just read the thread a bit more carefully to see the points from both sides before making your post, in case you read something which changes it

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

aronthomas17 wrote:
I apologise for my awful understanding of American history :(

It's OK. We don't expect everyone to know everything from every bit of history in the world. Maybe next time just read the thread a bit more carefully to see the points from both sides before making your post, in case you read something which changes it

True, I had read the arguments however I believe in this situation the argument seems to be less about regional identity and more about dividing people. So I misunderstood, thank you

Another take from the Military Times:

"For many Americans, the flag came to represent the South as a region," he said. "For many white southerners today, it still symbolizes regional pride. For others, it represents a particular interpretation of southern history. For still others, it represents rural life. And for many others, the flag represents rebellion against authority, whether motivated by politics or simple mischief." Service members may embrace it for any of those reasons, he said, adding that to ban it within the military would be "controversial."

"It would need to be acknowledged that not everyone who displays the flag does so with racist intent," Warren said. "Owing to the flag's documented history and ongoing life as a symbol of hatred and racial violence, it could be explained that the flag undermines the American armed forces' commitment to inclusivity, mutual respect and the defense of all Americans.

"Ban without an educational initiative, one that simply associates the battle flag with swastikas and other racist imagery would needlessly and predictably inspire more controversy."

Today, more than 40 percent of all military recruits come from the South, according to Defense Department statistics. By comparison, fewer than 15 percent are natives of the Northeast.

Full article:
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/06/25/military-is-ok-with-confederate-flag--for-now/29235155/

Now this is good, guess who also supports taking down the flag

http://nesn.com/2015/06/dale-earnhardt-jr-considers-confederate-flag-offensive-to-an-entire-race/

Yep, That Dale Earnhardt jr.

It's like a million nascar fans just screamed out in terror

so we good now? can everyone who has one will take it down?

 Polonius wrote:
There is no amount of "good treatment" that mitigates the grinding oppression of unregulated slavery in the American South. Families could be split up, education was forbidden, violence and terror were common, women were frequently and repeatedly raped, and there was nothing you could do to better your situation.

A minority might prefer three hots and a cot under such terms, but for most people, that level of horror is too great to bear.

Wait, what? In fact, didn't millions upon millions of people choose that state of affairs over death, throughout thousands of years of human history? It's been pretty clearly shown that if your choices are slavery or death, almost everyone chooses slavery. That was a weird post.

 generalgrog wrote:
So I think I have come full circle on this issue. I understand why, and I sympathize as to why southerners don't think it's an issue. In fact growing up in the south, watching dukes of hazard, and wearing t-shirts with the flag, I never considered it hateful, or even a problem. In fact if you didn't like it, too bad... I still don't consider it hateful, but I do think it's inconsiderate, not as bad as Nazi flag, but almost.

I mean the Nazi flag flown, even for the best intentions(if that were even possible), is still a Nazi flag.

I am the point that the confederate flag not be flown on state or US government property, and belongs in a museum.

If people want to fly it at their homes, that's their right, but take it down from public buildings. It represents too much hurt for minorities, and especially African American descendants of slaves.

What say Dakka?

GG

If Johnny Reb won the war there may be TWO Americas. one will be flying the Confederacy flag.
too bad they didn't. The Confederacy expects swift victory like ones against Mexicans some 20 years ago but no! After Crimea bloodshed, Warfare begins to change.

About the flag of the Confederacy itself. their National flag actually looks VERY similar to the flag of the Union. the flag with red X is actually battle flag but it fits a National ones too!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I would also suggest that if you were an adult, living in say, 1855 in South Carolina, you absolutely would own, or would be aspiring to own slaves, because that was the societal norm, and societal pressure at that time.

Maybe. Not sure, because, well, I am a vegetarian even though that certainly is not the societal norm here in France, is societal pressure is constantly pushing me to not be one.
But even if I was, then that just means I would be wrong.

Intent has less importance than effect. You can wave the battle flag intending it to be a display of southern pride, but the effect is that you appear to be endorsing an insurrectionist state that existed for the sole purpose of protecting the institution of slavery. You may have the right to do that as a mater of free speech, just as you could sew a swastika patch on your bomber jacket if you like. But it has no place flying from the top of government buildings.

Everyone else in the western world managed to throw off the social pressure to be a slave owner. Why not the southern US?

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

So should we be just as generous with the Nazis, Stalinists, or other Tyrants, or morally problematic regimes just because they could have done something even worse than their very existence already was?

Should we concentrate upon the anti-smoking campaigns of the Nazis to excuse their foundational morals and ethics being a problem?

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
For me at the end of the day the confederate flag is just plain scary. There are enough people that use it as symbol for their hateful beliefs and do so loudly enough it takes on that meaning for me too. These are people that would honestly want to hurt me for what I am and have done so to my family members. Further, however many historical meanings the flag may have had, motivations the confederacy may have had, or beliefs the Confederates may have held one of those was still the support of slavery. Even if you somehow claim it was like only 5% of what the confederacy wanted, it was still a part of it.That real part of it is the one that is important enough to dominate the value that institution and their symbols had, regardless of their internal thoughts at the time.

If Doug spends 80% of his time helping is grandma, 15% of his time gardening and 5% of his time stabbing children to death he isn't "Doug that guy who loves his grandma and gardens and also sometimes does other stuff" he's "Doug that guy who stabbed a bunch of children". Similarly if your Confederacy goes to war with the united states 80% because the government was unfairly trampling their rights, 15% because of unfair economic practices and 5% because they wanted to keep in their slaves they're not the government that "Left for states rights, economic gains and also some other stuff" they're the "Guys who went to war to keep their slaves". That's not unfair, not twisting the truth and not leaving anything of relative importance out. The reprehensibility of slavery is such a massive multiplier on the importance of the matter that it being about slavery at all, means that slavery is really the only thing that should matter, at least in the general discussion for the broad public.


Take all that and I just can't stomach the thing, at least outside an educational/historic context. Fly your confederate flag or whatever outside your house, I'll see it turn my car around and go down another street. The issue with flying it in front your state capital is the states capital is that your minority residents can't just leave and shouldn't have to in order to get away from that terrible flag.

FINALLY!!!

SOMEONE WHO GETS IT!

Your foundational morals matter more than do the peripheral behavior in cases like these.

The Foundational Morals and Ethics of the Confederacy are the same as "Dave, that guy who stabbed a bunch of kids." The fact that they loves their grandmother, and cut her lawn every week is completely obliterated by the evil they have done, and UNAPOLOGETICALLY DID!

The South has yet to really make any apology for slavery, and instead has gone to great lengths to bury it, sugar coat it, or other wise pretend "It wasn't as bad as all that."

The ONLY way the south can recover from their Confederate Motives is to do as the Germans have done, and say "Sorry, we got REALLY EVIL there for a while, and we have put up signs everywhere acknowledging that, and apologizing for it profusely." (And then working pretty hard to track down the worst of the villains of that regime to hold them accountable).

And, while there might be an occasion where a few slip through, they don't try to pretend that the Third Reich was anything but evil.

As people STILL TRY TO DO with the Confederacy.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the comments on this thread, there is a pretty good chance that there is at least one racist commenting, who is working so very hard to excuse every fundamental distinction from a regime founded upon the principle of slavery, which codified slavery as the natural right of the white man, and the natural condition of the "negro."

And the distinction of the existence of slavery in the rest of the world, which overall tended to see it in a negative light, eventually outlawing it.

That they are working so hard to pretend this distinction does not exists tends to suggest an ulterior motive.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
There is no amount of "good treatment" that mitigates the grinding oppression of unregulated slavery in the American South. Families could be split up, education was forbidden, violence and terror were common, women were frequently and repeatedly raped, and there was nothing you could do to better your situation.

A minority might prefer three hots and a cot under such terms, but for most people, that level of horror is too great to bear.

Wait, what? In fact, didn't millions upon millions of people choose that state of affairs over death, throughout thousands of years of human history? It's been pretty clearly shown that if your choices are slavery or death, almost everyone chooses slavery. That was a weird post.

That is pushing really hard against the definition of the word "prefer."

Just because one chooses between two horrific choices does little to make either choice their preffered choice.

This is ignoring the necessities and contingencies involved.

And, even if something is too much to bear, people might remain alive under such condition, yet remain totally or wholly broken human beings. They are effectively dead, existing solely for a moment to reclaim their lives. Or, they could just be grinding toward death, unable to face actual death.

Meeting people like that will allow an understanding of that condition.

MB

Ah, the old "it was not about slavery but economics" argument. As if slavery wasn't the crux of the south's economy.

Singling out the Confederacy and its iconography as evil is two dimensional hypocritical and retrograde.

Those who want the iconography are saying that the Confederacy is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.

It is revisionism of the worst order because it is so highly selective, the Victorian age was an age of colonial brutality and theft on an industrial scale. It was commonplace for the European powers and descendant cultures, including the United States to do the same sort of things that people were put on trial at Nuremburg for a century later.

The United States, Confederate States, France, United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Holland and Russia all did things in the 19th century that placed them on equal footing with the Third Reich.
The main difference was that by the 1930's society had moved on and these actions were no longer acceptable, and the victims of the Third Reich were not pre-agrarian tribes but advanced societies.

The further back in history you go the harsher things get and the more extreme measures were commonplace. it gets to a point where its not even bigoted anymore. Jefferson was a cultured man, not a savage, in his age blacks were inferior, end of, and he wasn't a racist for thinking such because the society of the time didn't think as we do. More recently it was unthinkable to allow females to have a political stake in society except by accident of birth, and some rare exceptions. This wasn't sexism, it was the common sense of the time. Even recently gay marriage was unthinkable, and that wasn't homophobic either, just normal. Todays cultured man is still likely tomorrows bigot. People a hundred years time will look back on our attitudes and see us as screaming bigots if they don't place us in our time, there is even a god guess as to how.

I dont like condemnation of the Confederacy because we really are no better, neither are you, however the politically correct guilt trip is an overwhelming political movement and it is stiffling free thought.
In the midst of this an important chapter of American history is about to go down the memory hole, and you will be far poorer than you might realise for it.

 Orlanth wrote:
Singling out the Confederacy and its iconography as evil is two dimensional hypocritical and retrograde.

Those who want the iconography are saying that the Confederacy is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.

It is revisionism of the worst order because it is so highly selective, the Victorian age was an age of colonial brutality and theft on an industrial scale. It was commonplace for the European powers and descendant cultures, including the United States to do the same sort of things that people were put on trial at Nuremburg for a century later.

The United States, Confederate States, France, United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Holland and Russia all did things in the 19th century that placed them on equal footing with the Third Reich.
The main difference was that by the 1930's society had moved on and these actions were no longer acceptable, and the victims of the Third Reich were not pre-agrarian tribes but advanced societies.

The further back in history you go the harsher things get and the more extreme measures were commonplace. it gets to a point where its not even bigoted anymore. Jefferson was a cultured man, not a savage, in his age blacks were inferior, end of, and he wasn't a racist for thinking such because the society of the time didn't think as we do. More recently it was unthinkable to allow females to have a political stake in society except by accident of birth, and some rare exceptions. This wasn't sexism, it was the common sense of the time. Even recently gay marriage was unthinkable, and that wasn't homophobic either, just normal. Todays cultured man is still likely tomorrows bigot. People a hundred years time will look back on our attitudes and see us as screaming bigots if they don't place us in our time, there is even a god guess as to how.

I dont like condemnation of the Confederacy because we really are no better, neither are you, however the politically correct guilt trip is an overwhelming political movement and it is stiffling free thought.
In the midst of this an important chapter of American history is about to go down the memory hole, and you will be far poorer than you might realise for it.

So state government buildings should fly the flag of an illegal, rebellious state that made war on the United States and existed with the express purpose of imposing slavery and white supremacy because... Why? Because history is a thing? What is your point exactly? Nothing is being forgotten, were just calling a spade a spade. Confederate flags belong in museums and on the front porches of racists' houses.

Also, you're wrong. Not allowing women to hold political office was sexism then, too. It was just widely accepted sexism.

 Las wrote:

So state government buildings should fly the flag of an illegal, rebellious state that made war on the United States and existed with the express purpose of imposing slavery and white supremacy because... Why? Because history is a thing? What is your point exactly? Nothing is being forgotten, were just calling a spade a spade. Confederate flags belong in museums and on the front porches of racists' houses.

You fly the flag of the seditious traitorous, proto-Nazi United States of America on flagpoles, it is just as evil.
You are conditioned to overlook the truths of the above. Black slaves matter, Native American genocide doesnt. Jefferson Davis was a seditious traitor, George Washington was a loyal patriot.

My beloved Union Flag is dripping with a lot of spilled blood, so is the history of everyone else.

Confederate guilt is partisan and disproportionate, and historically invalid.

 Las wrote:

Also, you're wrong. Not allowing women to hold political office was sexism then, too. It was just widely accepted sexism.

By 1910 this was so, but throughout the 19th century womens rights were a back issue, and it was a perfectly acceptable opinion to think that if you gave women the vote you would trivialise debate and make a mockery of politics, because women thing on different things to men. Political truth is relative, always was.
You and I are tomorrows screaming bigots, we don't know it yet, that is why in a fair observation of history we are not.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Las wrote:

So state government buildings should fly the flag of an illegal, rebellious state that made war on the United States and existed with the express purpose of imposing slavery and white supremacy because... Why? Because history is a thing? What is your point exactly? Nothing is being forgotten, were just calling a spade a spade. Confederate flags belong in museums and on the front porches of racists' houses.

You fly the flag of the seditious traitorous, proto-Nazi United States of America on flagpoles, it is just as evil.
You are conditioned to overlook the truths of the above. Black slaves matter, Native American genocide doesnt. Jefferson Davis was a seditious traitor, George Washington was a loyal patriot.

My beloved Union Flag is dripping with a lot of spilled blood, so is the history of everyone else.

Confederate guilt is partisan and disproportionate, and historically invalid.

George Washington was, yes, also a traitor. The distinction is that being a traitor is not an inherently bad thing. Committing treason to establish a representative government for example is good, doing it to maintain the American Holocaust is bad. Also, you need to stop thinking in a binary. It is possible to condemn the genocide of the First Nations and also chattel slavery.

But okay, lets take your example and Godwin it out. Would you be okay with German governmental buildings flying the swastika banner? Why or why not?

The Confederacy, unlike the US, was created SPECIFICALLY to maintain slavery. And no, there was nothing proto-Nazi about the United States in 1776. You throw that word around as if it doesn't have a definition.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Las wrote:

Also, you're wrong. Not allowing women to hold political office was sexism then, too. It was just widely accepted sexism.

By 1910 this was so, but throughout the 19th century womens rights were a back issue, and it was a perfectly acceptable opinion to think that if you gave women the vote you would trivialise debate and make a mockery of politics, because women thing on different things to men. Political truth is relative, always was.
You and I are tomorrows screaming bigots, we don't know it yet, that is why in a fair observation of history we are not.

It was still sexism. And by the way, the reason it changed is because people forced it to change. It didn't just happen. The same thing is happening right now with the battle flag. It is a symbol of slavery and white supremacy. Not only was it created with the express purpose of being so, it has since been adopted by white supremacist groups throughout the South. This has been the case since desegregation. This is what it represents and as such should not be on the flag poles of state buildings.

 Las wrote:

George Washington was, yes, also a traitor. The distinction is that being a traitor is not an inherently bad thing. Committing treason to establish a representative government for example is good, doing it to maintain the American Holocaust is bad. Also, you need to stop thinking in a binary. It is possible to condemn the genocide of the First Nations and also chattel slavery.

Progress, now you need to take the thought a step further. We we dont judge one, we shouldnt judge other. This isnt thinking in binary, its just being consistent for the historical record;

 Las wrote:

But okay, lets take your example and Godwin it out. Would you be okay with German governmental buildings flying the swastika banner? Why or why not?

This was explained earlier on another thread, the political swastika is an internationally banned symbol. It was also explained on the thread just just quoted, the Nazis were different as to their choice of victim and their timing.
At the time of the confederacy de facto slavery was still acceptable, it was still occurring in the north, and colonialism was effectively indistinguishable from slavery anyway.

 Las wrote:

The Confederacy, unlike the US, was created SPECIFICALLY to maintain slavery.

Thats about as accurate as saying America exists to turn th Altantic into cold bewed tea.

 Las wrote:

And no, there was nothing proto-Nazi about the United States in 1776. You throw that word around as if it doesn't have a definition.

It doesn't, but its understood in context.
However the parallels between colonial societies bloodshed and more recent horrors is there. The prime difference between Spain and the UK and Nazi Germany is about two centuries. sensibilities evolve over time, the sensibilities that condemn the Confederacy weren't really condemnable until that turn of the 20th century. You could still make the comment, but it was standard hypocritical propaganda. It is to Lincoln's credit that people are still buying his bs.

 Las wrote:

It was still sexism.

No thats revisionist. First its normal, then it becomes abnormal, then comes the change. Its a process of stages. In the first condition is not bigotry, it's good thinking. Hence Jefferson's outlook.

 Las wrote:

And by the way, the reason it changed is because people forced it to change. It didn't just happen.

Yes after the moral awareness change, not before. An awareness change doesnt affect common morality.

 Las wrote:

The same thing is happening right now with the battle flag. It is a symbol of slavery and white supremacy.

No. First because one the Confederacy is dead. Second it places a direct moral judgement on the use of the symbology ignoring the truth that it can be used for multiple purpose as a heritage symbol.

 Las wrote:

Not only was it created with the express purpose of being so, it has since been adopted by white supremacist groups throughout the South. This has been the case since desegregation. This is what it represents and as such should not be on the flag poles of state buildings.

But Obama can use it to get elected. So....tell me, what type of white supremacist is he?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Las wrote:

George Washington was, yes, also a traitor. The distinction is that being a traitor is not an inherently bad thing. Committing treason to establish a representative government for example is good, doing it to maintain the American Holocaust is bad. Also, you need to stop thinking in a binary. It is possible to condemn the genocide of the First Nations and also chattel slavery.

Progress, now you need to take the thought a step further. We we dont judge one, we shouldnt judge other. This isnt thinking in binary, its just being consistent for the historical record;

Oh, Christ. You're stretching hard. That is absolutely thinking in binary.

I mean, you do know that contemporary historians largely consider the confederacy to be a half-baked, illegal rebellion against the legitimate elected government in order to protect slavery, right? It has been judged because it deserves judgement. You are not being consistent with anything, really.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Las wrote:

But okay, lets take your example and Godwin it out. Would you be okay with German governmental buildings flying the swastika banner? Why or why not?

This was explained earlier on another thread, the political swastika is an internationally banned symbol. It was also explained on the thread just just quoted, the Nazis were different as to their choice of victim and their timing.
At the time of the confederacy de facto slavery was still acceptable, it was still occurring in the north, and colonialism was effectively indistinguishable from slavery anyway.

First, colonialism is an incredibly amorphous, huge concept, varied in its application and practices by context and example. Slavery is slaver, it is an act, like murder. Colonialism and slavery can not be compared like that. Its like saying sports is indistinguishable from cycling.

Secondly, slavery was not wholly acceptable throughout the US, and certainly not the world. If that were the case then there would be no distinction between free and slave state, abolitionist agitation or political violence in places like Kansas.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Las wrote:

The Confederacy, unlike the US, was created SPECIFICALLY to maintain slavery.

Thats about as accurate as saying America exists to turn th Altantic into cold bewed tea.

Prove to me that it wasn't, without revisionist "lost cause" mythos bs.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Las wrote:

And no, there was nothing proto-Nazi about the United States in 1776. You throw that word around as if it doesn't have a definition.

It doesn't, but its understood in context.
However the parallels between colonial societies bloodshed and more recent horrors is there. The prime difference between Spain and the UK and Nazi Germany is about two centuries. sensibilities evolve over time, the sensibilities that condemn the Confederacy weren't really condemnable until that turn of the 20th century. You could still make the comment, but it was standard hypocritical propaganda. It is to Lincoln's credit that people are still buying his bs.

The colonial and imperialist past of spain and the UK are massively different than the Nazi ideology. Both were terrible, terrible things and don't get me wrong, I love dragging your country's moral history through the mud, but the Nazi ideology was unique in its machinery and part of that is why showing the swastika just doesn't compare to the Spanish or UK flag.

the sensibilities of the Confederacy were absolutely condemnable and plenty of people condemned them at the time. You're taking the fact that the Union didn't engage in the war as a crusade to abolish slavery from the get go to incredible lengths to justify the Confederacy. Make no mistake, for the Confederacy, the war was about slavery from day one.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Las wrote:

It was still sexism.

No thats revisionist. First its normal, then it becomes abnormal, then comes the change. Its a process of stages. In the first condition is not bigotry, it's good thinking. Hence Jefferson's outlook.

It was still sexism. Its a word with a definition that applies. "They thought it was a good idea" is not a justification for slavery.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Las wrote:

The same thing is happening right now with the battle flag. It is a symbol of slavery and white supremacy.

No. First because one the Confederacy is dead. Second it places a direct moral judgement on the use of the symbology ignoring the truth that it can be used for multiple purpose as a heritage symbol.

Again, you're going all or nothing on this for no reason other than it fits your narrative. Sure, it can be a heritage symbol. I could easily make the case that the swastika is a heritage symbol, especially if I was a racist.

 Orlanth wrote:
[

 Las wrote:

Not only was it created with the express purpose of being so, it has since been adopted by white supremacist groups throughout the South. This has been the case since desegregation. This is what it represents and as such should not be on the flag poles of state buildings.

But Obama can use it to get elected. So....tell me, what type of white supremacist is he?

Out of curiosity, have you ever been the Southern US?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Las wrote:

The Confederacy, unlike the US, was created SPECIFICALLY to maintain slavery.

Thats about as accurate as saying America exists to turn th Altantic into cold bewed tea.

Quit white washing history already. the confederation formed on the ideal that white men where superior to black men. Don't make me quote the decloration and causes of scedeing states again.

might as well: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

The confederacy was specifically formed to maintain slavery now and for all future time.

and in current news:

Today 2 people got arrested for taking down the klans flag, and who offers to bails them out and pay their legal fees? Michael Moore. The guy who made everyone doubt climate change was real because he went over the top with it. I have him on my dog house for that, then he goes and does this. The bbc had a article about her and mentioned that flag went up to protest against de-segragation. Which is why I cringe when people say to leave it up for heritage and history.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33297625
"It was first flown in 1962 in protest at the growing civil rights movement and has been a source of rancour and controversy in the state ever since."

the flags heritage over the city hall is a symbol of protesting civil rights, that is it's heritage and that's why it needs to come down. So if you think the flag should stay up for heritage reasons, you're saying to leave it up to protest civil rights.