Confederate Flag issue

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.

**Sinful Hero**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
This all seems to have gone a long way off the topic of the Confederate flag.

Should the thread be closed?

I promise to behave if you leave it open til after the klan rally to save the flag.

How many are you really expecting?

**CptJake**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
This all seems to have gone a long way off the topic of the Confederate flag.

Should the thread be closed?

I promise to behave if you leave it open til after the klan rally to save the flag.

The request was made on June 23, Gaines said, just one day after South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) announced that she would call on state lawmakers to take up the issue of removing the flag after a racially motivated attack on a black church that left nine people dead. The Klan group said it expects about 200 people to attend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/29/kkk-group-plans-rally-outside-of-south-carolina-statehouse/

Even if they get that many, I suspect counter protestors/folks disagreeing with them will outnumber the racists. Scheduled for July 18th.

If this thread gets locked, that is a couple of weeks away and the event could get a separate thread.

**zgort**

Two things. 1) CSA lost, who WANTS to fly the rebel flag? It's like Virginia State property flying a Union Jack and claiming "heritage." True, but also silly.

2) Ultimately, when you fly the flag, you endorse all of it's meanings, intentional or otherwise. One of those meanings is hateful. It is not appropriate for state property.

As for your own use - do what you want. First Amendment protects you. I don't see why people freak out about not having on state property.

Fun fact - the Confederate symbol pictured above is not even the CSA flag.

**sirlynchmob**

Sinful Hero wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
This all seems to have gone a long way off the topic of the Confederate flag.

Should the thread be closed?

I promise to behave if you leave it open til after the klan rally to save the flag.

How many are you really expecting?

I expect a large turnout for it, I think the klan is much larger than people give it credit for. But frazz and others seem to believe it will only be a few. So I find myself wondering today, do I have less faith in humanity than frazz does? have I lost all faith in humanity? maybe, or do posters on here just have more faith in southerners to do the right thing?

**CptJake**

Southern Poverty Law Center estimates the Klan membership at 5-8k across the country.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan

The Klan estimates they will get 200 folks.

**Sinful Hero**

@sirlynchmob
It's neither. The Klan is mostly a joke these days. It's very splintered and fractured. I wouldn't expect them to even agree to what time they need to show up.

The Aryan Brotherhood is a much more relevant white supremacist group.

**Dreadwinter**

CptJake wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.

On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.

I don't see the problem. After all, they were only celebrating their heritage and you should respect that. It's not their fault you were offended.

Or they were a bunch of dumb kids, which is what it sounds like to me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And also, racism isn't confined to the southern United States.

This should already be readily apparent by the recent riots over equality in several northern states.

I forget, which side was Illinois on in the ACW?

Sees racist act, calls place it happened The South to prove The South is still 'ugly' with racism.

I want to point out that not only did I not imply that my state is a southern state, I point out that it is not int he first line of my post. So I mean, nice job guys.

What I was pointing out is that racism is ugly not just in the south, but in regions close to it.

**CptJake**

Let's see how the WHOLE conversation started:

Dreadwinter wrote:
CptJake wrote:
stanman wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.

You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.

Just out of curiosity, in what ways is it still pretty ugly?

I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.

On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.

So, YOU replied to "In what ways is The South still ugly?" And though you state not the True South, you sure as heck seemed to equate it to the South that is still 'ugly'. Hence my reply.

**Sinful Hero**

Edit: Don't think I want to go down that line of discussion.

**BeAfraid**

That Slaveryexisted, or that racism exists elsewhere is irrelevant to the issue of whether the South is predominantly racist in their attitudes (especially concerning their attempts to white-wash - literally - The Civil War, and the symbols of the Confederacy).

Almost all racism in the USA is inspired by what the South Represented, REGARDLESS of where that racism occurs (see Sarah Palin's defense of the Confederate Flag as an example. She is ALASKAN, yet appropriates symbols of the Confederacy for a "Heritage" she has no part of).

So, dealing with the Symbols of racism, and removing them from the public sphere, and forcing them into the private sphere will be the FIRST STEP in divorcing an explicitly racist narrative from the country on a Federal level.

This will not stop racists from being racists, but it WILL deny them a shield behind which to hide, and make their attitudes more visible to the mainstream population.

MB

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:

So, YOU replied to "In what ways is The South still ugly?" And though you state not the True South, you sure as heck seemed to equate it to the South that is still 'ugly'. Hence my reply.

Actually he specifically differentiated Southern Illinois from the "True South", how you managed to miss that is beyond me.

**Dreadwinter**

CptJake wrote:
Let's see how the WHOLE conversation started:

Dreadwinter wrote:
CptJake wrote:
stanman wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.

You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.

Just out of curiosity, in what ways is it still pretty ugly?

I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.

On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.

So, YOU replied to "In what ways is The South still ugly?" And though you state not the True South, you sure as heck seemed to equate it to the South that is still 'ugly'. Hence my reply.

I did not equate it to the South. I made sure to go out of my way to say it was not the south even though it is referred to as Southern Illinois. I already explained everything else, you are really trying to push this.

**Kilkrazy**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33393860

Owner of the General Lee out of Dukes Of Hazzard has decided to paint over the Confederate flag with a US flag.

**Sienisoturi**

Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33393860

Owner of the General Lee out of Dukes Of Hazzard has decided to paint over the Confederate flag with a US flag.

I wonder why did he buy such a car, if the confederate flag bothers him so much.

**Relapse**

It's funny how the Dukes of Hazard is now pulled to the center of all this.

**d-usa**

OgreChubbs wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:

I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.

Ding ding ding.

Casey Anthony's sorry ass was national news for a loooooong time.

This barely registered a blip.
They where adults and white... no one cares.

So does no one care because national networks aren't reporting it 24/7, or are the national networks not reporting it because nobody cares?

People need to realize that the national networks are not some benevolent servants of the national conscience with a mission do disperse all knowledge that should be had by all regarding popular events affecting our country. Their only purpose is to make money, and to make money they need advertisers, and to get advertisers they need good ratings. How do they get ratings? Figure out what pisses people off this week and then report the kind of stories that piss people off. Cops shooting blacks currently gets people worked up, so that is what gets reported. Not because the news think it's some national tragedy, they didn't give a crap about it until recently, but because it gets people worked up and keeps them turning on the TV. That whole concept is the only reason FoxNews exists, because they figured out that nobody is pushing stories about evil liberals and their attacks on conservatives and that 50% of the political spectrum isn't getting what they want to hear from the other news channels. MSNBC figured out that FoxNews had a solid business model, aka spin news to tell stories that appeal to political ideologies, and are doing the same for liberals.

If people suddely decided that they cared about dachshunds gaking on the sidewalks and that our government should do something about it we would have news trucks parked on the side of the streets with cameras having live shots everytime a dachshund lays down a log. Frazzled would be interviewed on crossfire as the leading authority on the fact that their breeding allowed them maximum efficiency for converting food to lethal logs and the associated gas emissions, and other people would argue that german shepards have much bigger fecal products and that the media is just covering up for them because of the collective guild over the participation of the breeds in guarding the nazi death camps.

tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

**Relapse**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

It's always been a bit scary, realizing how mobs can be worked up. Mass shootings are bad, but far worse things are killing people off.

**Dreadclaw69**

Relapse wrote:
It's always been a bit scary, realizing how mobs can be worked up. Mass shootings are bad, but far worse things are killing people off.

With journalism the maxim "If it bleeds it leads" is a definite factor. Also with 24 hour media events like mass shootings, terrorists attacks, etc. are just ratings fodder.

It seems that calls to boycott the Confederate Rushmore were ignored yesterday;
http://news.yahoo.com/july-4-crowds-ignore-call-boycott-georgia-park-203102664.html

STONE MOUNTAIN, Ga. (Reuters) - Fourth of July holidaymakers ignored a call to boycott Georgia's Stone Mountain Park, known as the "Confederate Rushmore," over its display of the contentious Confederate flag.

Hundreds of people had staked out spots at the 3,200-acre (1,295-hectare) privately run park by noon on Saturday for nighttime laser and fireworks shows. They shrugged off heavy rain on the park's busiest day of the year as well as the boycott call.

Democratic state Representative LaDawn Blackett Jones this week urged people to stay away from the park 10 miles (16 km) east of Atlanta because it flies three flags of the pro-slavery Confederacy alongside the U.S. and Georgia state flags.

Bobbie Smith of Fitzgerald, Georgia, who was camping at Stone Mountain with her family, called the boycott call "just stupid."

“This whole park is a Confederate memorial. If you don’t have the flag here, where on Earth would you put it?” she said.

The Confederate flag from the 1861-65 U.S. Civil War has become a lightning rod for outrage after the shooting of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, last month. The white suspect, Dylann Roof, had posed for photos with the Confederate battle flag.

Politicians in several Southern states have called for removal of the flag and other Confederate memorials from public spaces. A raft of major retailers have said they would pull items with the Confederate flag on them.

Ray Simpkins, of Kennesaw, Georgia, who brought his children to see the laser show, said the flag remains a reminder of the Confederacy's advocacy of slavery.

"Although I don’t love it, I think there’s a place for it here,” said Simpkins, who is black. “But it shouldn’t fly next to the U.S. flag."

The park is on state land and run by the Stone Mountain Memorial Association. Spokesman John Bankhead said, “People on both sides of the issue say it (the flag) belongs in a museum. Here in Georgia, the Stone Mountain Park serves as that.”

The park is known as the "Confederate Mount Rushmore" for its 90-foot-tall (27-meter-tall) relief sculpture of three Confederate figures - President Jefferson Davis and Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. The park describes it as the largest high relief sculpture in the world.

The mountain is also infamous as the founding spot of a 20th century version of the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist group.

**Kilkrazy**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.

To fully complete your analogy;
- we need people to call for outright bans on air travel
- we need people to start providing a specific need for air travel
- we need people to be licensed to travel by an aircraft
- we need calls to remove aircraft from private ownership
- we need to start outlawing aircraft based on cosmetic appearances
- if a pilot intentionally downs an aircraft (as happened recently) we need to say that the aircraft is at fault

Aircraft crashes require a team of experts to put together months of technical data based on analyzing the black box, computer simulations, examining the stresses put on components that have been damaged by the impact and scattered for miles (as well as suffering further damage from their sudden arrest as they hit the ground), and many other very technical assessments. All things that are lacking in the investigation of mass shootings. Your comparison is wholly disingenuous.

**Hordini**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.

I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.

**Kanluwen**

Hordini wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.

I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.

You might want to tell that to the NRA then, because LaPierre suggested things like "arming teachers" or "armed volunteers"(read: citizens) at schools after Newtown.

**Hordini**

Kanluwen wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.

I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.

You might want to tell that to the NRA then, because LaPierre suggested things like "arming teachers" or "armed volunteers"(read: citizens) at schools after Newtown.

Yes, allowing people such as teacher's that option, with proper training. That's not the same as requiring them to be armed, which is what the anti-gun side often seems to characterize it as.

**Kanluwen**

Hordini wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.

I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.

You might want to tell that to the NRA then, because LaPierre suggested things like "arming teachers" or "armed volunteers"(read: citizens) at schools after Newtown.

Yes, allowing people such as teacher's that option, with proper training. That's not the same as requiring them to be armed, which is what the anti-gun side often seems to characterize it as.

You're welcome to believe that's what he was suggesting.

It's not the truth, but you don't have to stop believin'. Just hold onto that feeling of "it's the anti-gun side painting that glorious organization the NRA in a bad light!".

**Hordini**

Kanluwen wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.

I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.

You might want to tell that to the NRA then, because LaPierre suggested things like "arming teachers" or "armed volunteers"(read: citizens) at schools after Newtown.

Yes, allowing people such as teacher's that option, with proper training. That's not the same as requiring them to be armed, which is what the anti-gun side often seems to characterize it as.

You're welcome to believe that's what he was suggesting.

It's not the truth, but you don't have to stop believin'. Just hold onto that feeling of "it's the anti-gun side painting that glorious organization the NRA in a bad light!".

You're the one who brought up the NRA. They aren't the only group on the pro-gun side. It's the difference between suggesting that people with proper training be allowed to carry firearms and that that could potentially increase security against mass shootings, and the anti-gun side asking "So you think everyone should have a gun? And that would make people safer?"

**Relapse**

Must have been Confederate flags all over Chicago to cause all those shootings.

**treslibras**

Dead thread dead then?

**whembly**

treslibras wrote:
Dead thread dead then?

Nah...

SC Senate just voted to have the flag removed from capital grounds, by a large margin:
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article26597686.html

EDIT: corrected my typo.

**Ninjacommando**

Relapse wrote:
Must have been Confederate flags all over Chicago to cause all those shootings.

those were black on black crimes. no one cares about those

Now had one been a white(any non-black) man shooting a black "kid" in his mid to late 20s that would of been a national tragedy.

@Whembly SC

don't think NC is on the chopping block yet

But I wonder when are they going to take down the US flag for the Genocide of native Americans.