LOL!
Rebel Flag Reverence
- Thread starter Crockett
- Start date
LOL!
Clean
5,000+ Posts
This whole movement is idiocy. It's Orwellian in some respects. An American Cultural Revolution, not unlike Mao's. It's trying to purge history and impose an certain ideological way of thinking. And, God help you if you don't go along. I think it was Spock in Star Trek who said, "In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane".
Destroying/ defacing historical symbols that you don't like/agree with is something that you would expect from the Taliban or ISIS. How long before this movement begins to attack people it perceives as non-conforming or guilty of past sins instead of monuments?
Last edited:
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I have no idea how much money John Schneider and co. are getting off residuals of that show, but I'm not sure why it's fair to cut off that money from them for the sake of making a political point. For a non-judgmental country, we're awfully quick to pass judgment on people who did things 20-30 years ago with none of the current baggage and counter-cultural movements that we have today. Was the show racist? Did it accurately depict how people at that time would have viewed the southern flag? Did it accurately depict how two guys in a souped-up car will always outrace police on dirt roads and be able to go back home without worrying that the police might know where they live and come looking for them? Absolutely!
Now we're hearing calls to sensor Gone with the Wind. Do we now go back and get rid of any art or literature from that period that even displays or mentions the flag in passing or as part of the background? What exactly are we trying to accomplish? To keep from offending people who aren't even watching the show to begin with? If the very existence of that icon in history is an issue, then the answer isn't to erase it.
There is a lot of great and offensive art, literature, movies, etc out there. Good lord, if Gone With the Wind has to go, I do not know how you keep game of thrones on the air. The Kaiser was not a good dude, but I am okay with keeping All Is Quiet on the Western Front, even though it's a movie from the perspective of the other side. The germans are pretty big on banning nazi stuff, but even they made the movie Downfall. (They also air hogan's heroes). We're in a bad place when we, even private parties, are becoming more restrictive of free speech than the germans.
Anyway, this was from UT's new president today.
http://ddce.utexas.edu/statues/
^ Here is the link to UT's effort to remove the statues.
So a shooting happened 1,200 miles away unlikely featuring any party that was even aware UT had confederate statues, so obviously the logical response is to take the statues 1,200 miles away down. Talk about opportunism at its finest.
Also, do not give me "the students" nonsense. A tiny minority of students actually participates in the student government election. In this election, two other candidates won the initial election. Even less students turned out for the runoff than the initial one, and the two that came in second the first time won the runoff.
Anyway, this was from UT's new president today.
http://ddce.utexas.edu/statues/
^ Here is the link to UT's effort to remove the statues.
So a shooting happened 1,200 miles away unlikely featuring any party that was even aware UT had confederate statues, so obviously the logical response is to take the statues 1,200 miles away down. Talk about opportunism at its finest.
Also, do not give me "the students" nonsense. A tiny minority of students actually participates in the student government election. In this election, two other candidates won the initial election. Even less students turned out for the runoff than the initial one, and the two that came in second the first time won the runoff.
Last edited:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33369701
I was not aware there were confederate statues in the middle east.
I was not aware there were confederate statues in the middle east.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
When Confederate monuments are being held on the same level as UNESCO recognized monuments someone is digging deep to find absurd correlations.
I don't agree with the premise to bury this part of Southern history but still free speech works both ways. Students on UT's campus have just as much right to protest that statue as those that want to keep it. You and I both may say "that's stupid" but it's their right.
I'll repeat, on the confederate flags themselves they've overwhelmingly become representative of oppression, slavery and other bad qualities. The war of perception has been lost. Individuals can bravely flaunt the flag all they want. They shouldn't be upset when they are branded with the aforementioned qualities as perception is reality. Still, anyone should have the right to fly the flag just as those critical of what it represents have a right to characterize/mischaracterize the flag and those who fly it.
I don't agree with the premise to bury this part of Southern history but still free speech works both ways. Students on UT's campus have just as much right to protest that statue as those that want to keep it. You and I both may say "that's stupid" but it's their right.
I'll repeat, on the confederate flags themselves they've overwhelmingly become representative of oppression, slavery and other bad qualities. The war of perception has been lost. Individuals can bravely flaunt the flag all they want. They shouldn't be upset when they are branded with the aforementioned qualities as perception is reality. Still, anyone should have the right to fly the flag just as those critical of what it represents have a right to characterize/mischaracterize the flag and those who fly it.
The problem is not that. The problem is they act like they speak for ALL the students. They do not. They should say "some students" or a "group of students." That's why the next sentence I wrote in that post began with "a tiny minority of students."
In reality, the vast majority of students are drinking beer, having a good time, or doing something else and not caring.
My complaint was not at all with students protesting, it was Fenves's failure to qualify how many.
Last edited:
^
Ha! Ha! Yes, Fenves and his dog and pony show task force does resemble ISIS at Palmyra.
Ha! Ha! Yes, Fenves and his dog and pony show task force does resemble ISIS at Palmyra.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
That sounds like my alma mater, U of Washington. If there isn't a group of students that cares about he monument, why does it matter? The alums should also have a say. Organize a group to keep it if it matters.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/confederate-flag-poll-racism-southern-pride/
Polling says the media's views are not the majority.
Polling says the media's views are not the majority.
This is an unusual article, written by a Marine, who is also a black man from Birmingham Al
well worth the read. More common sense true sense than all the faux raged media race baiters and leftists pretending to be so moral.
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/black_veteran_a_son_of_the_sou.html#incart_email
some of his words:
"From the gun debate to the flag debate (which are both somehow tied to this most recent, senseless shooting tragedy) it seems that liberal thought continues to show its fear of inanimate objects. Such a way of thinking never holds PEOPLE accountable. Instead it points fingers in every other direction.
The removal of a historical banner won't stop racists from exercising bigotry. As a matter of fact, racists will be racists despite regulations and constant "feel good" legislation, no flag needed. The ignorance of the disgruntled protestors is evident in their refusal to acknowledge that the flag widely recognized as the "Confederate Flag" was never actually adopted as the flag of the Confederacy. They'll also never admit or realize that not only was slavery not the motivating factor for the ensuing civil war, but that slavery was an American institution, not a Confederate one.
The Confederacy, in its prime, never mounted the atrocities of the Trail of Tears or the Black Hills conspiracy. But it seems that all because a few cowards in bedsheets once hijacked the gorgeous colors of a banner so rich in history to terrorize and intimidate other Americans, we condemn the Southern cloth to oblivion as a misnamed symbol of hate. It doesn't matter that slaves outside of the declared boundaries remained enslaved in the North. Neither does it matter that many Southerners gave up plots of their property to house and provide compensable labor for black workers. It doesn't matter that Lincoln, who is often regarded as the liberator of enslaved blacks cared less for the welfare of slaves than for the sovereignty of an entire country. "
well worth the read. More common sense true sense than all the faux raged media race baiters and leftists pretending to be so moral.
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/black_veteran_a_son_of_the_sou.html#incart_email
some of his words:
"From the gun debate to the flag debate (which are both somehow tied to this most recent, senseless shooting tragedy) it seems that liberal thought continues to show its fear of inanimate objects. Such a way of thinking never holds PEOPLE accountable. Instead it points fingers in every other direction.
The removal of a historical banner won't stop racists from exercising bigotry. As a matter of fact, racists will be racists despite regulations and constant "feel good" legislation, no flag needed. The ignorance of the disgruntled protestors is evident in their refusal to acknowledge that the flag widely recognized as the "Confederate Flag" was never actually adopted as the flag of the Confederacy. They'll also never admit or realize that not only was slavery not the motivating factor for the ensuing civil war, but that slavery was an American institution, not a Confederate one.
The Confederacy, in its prime, never mounted the atrocities of the Trail of Tears or the Black Hills conspiracy. But it seems that all because a few cowards in bedsheets once hijacked the gorgeous colors of a banner so rich in history to terrorize and intimidate other Americans, we condemn the Southern cloth to oblivion as a misnamed symbol of hate. It doesn't matter that slaves outside of the declared boundaries remained enslaved in the North. Neither does it matter that many Southerners gave up plots of their property to house and provide compensable labor for black workers. It doesn't matter that Lincoln, who is often regarded as the liberator of enslaved blacks cared less for the welfare of slaves than for the sovereignty of an entire country. "
mmm--guess the majority of those polled have a misunderstanding or are naively innocent---southern pride is not an option
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Sure, the southern culture has positive attributes that should be remembered and preserved, and the Confederate flag symbolizes those attributes. But that cannot be separated from the fact that the Confederate flag was the symbol of support for slavery during Civil war, later became the symbol of preserving government-enforced segregation during the civil-rights movement, and even today is the symbol for many white-supremacy groups. The flag is not a symbol of South Carolina, but rather of white South Carolina, and should not be the official flag of the state.
That said, private use of the flag does not raise the same concerns as adoption of the flag as an official public symbol. Walmart should be allowed to decide whether to sell the flag, and NASCAR should be allowed to decide whether to give flags away. Each individual should be allowed to decide whether to fly the flag or buy a shirt displaying the flag. And PLEASE don't take away the Dukes of Hazard!
On another note, there is no justification for trying to remove all traces of the flag from existence. The flag should remain in museums, statues, books, etc. Even if you see the Confederate flag as an evil symbol (which I do, btw), it is part of our history, and history should never be white-washed.
That said, private use of the flag does not raise the same concerns as adoption of the flag as an official public symbol. Walmart should be allowed to decide whether to sell the flag, and NASCAR should be allowed to decide whether to give flags away. Each individual should be allowed to decide whether to fly the flag or buy a shirt displaying the flag. And PLEASE don't take away the Dukes of Hazard!
On another note, there is no justification for trying to remove all traces of the flag from existence. The flag should remain in museums, statues, books, etc. Even if you see the Confederate flag as an evil symbol (which I do, btw), it is part of our history, and history should never be white-washed.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
And just to clarify one point -- saying that each individual should be allowed to fly the flag if they want to does not mean that others should be obligated to respect that decision. If you want to fly a confederate flag, be my guest. But please understand that I will assume that you are either a racist, or hopelessly naïve about what the flag stands for.
I'm satisfied that many fly the flag in naive innocence. But when they tell me "you're ignorant" because I believe the central issue causing the Rebels to secede is slavery, I want them to start seriously reading history books and apply critical thinking skills to what they read.
Last edited:
And yet according to CNN, 51% of college educated Americans feel the flag stands for southern pride. In this thread Crockett's allies are NJlonghorn who wants to tell southern states what to do (the flag is not official symbol of south carolina, it currently flies at the confederate war memorial on the capitol grounds, not above the capitol itself) and seattlehusker.
I've never had any desire to tell anyone outside of Texas how to live their lives. I really could care less if Vermont reorganized itself as a communist republic with no individual rights. I honestly do not care what people in other states do. Meanwhile, to this day, people from outside the south seem obsessed with telling the south what to do including now what flags they fly and what those flags are even supposed to mean. Then they do not see how the civil war came about. It's truly remarkable. Go read the Corwin Amendment. That did not stop the civil war. I recommend reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I am aware that Massachusetts sided with Cromwell in the English Civil War while Virginia sided with Charles I. I am aware that the first veto in American history was Washington vetoing a bill by the northern states that would have unconstitutionally given them more representation. I am aware that the Nullification Crisis was due to the fact the Northern states ignored the congressional rules of parliamentary procedure to get the tariff of abominations passed. I am also aware the south was SOOOO obsessed with the expansion of slavery that it accepted the missouri compromise that did not give slavery very much room to expand. It again accepted limited slave territory in 1850. Slavery expansion did not seriously return until an activist supreme court in Dred Scott. I know that there were a lot of mexicans and germans in Texas that fought for the south despite not owning any slaves and some of whom could clearly afford to do so. I know that Robert E Lee freed his slaves. Meanwhile Grant's slaves were not freed until 1865 when Missouri abolished slavery. I am aware that a lot of northerners did not seem to think the war was over slavery during the New York City Draft Riots. I am also aware of the fact that most presidential elections for the past 150 years have seen the northern and southern states divided. I am also aware of how divisive the 2000 election was where a candidate won with 47% of the vote. It is not hard to imagine half the country leaving when in the 1860 election the president was elected by 39% of the vote and a mere 57% of one half of the country. I know that the vast majority of indian tribes sided with the south. I know that one Judah Benjamin was the confederate secretary of state and I have read his writings on secession. I also know what the people, north and south, who did the fighting themselves said what they were fighting over. The majority in the north were fighting to keep the union together and in the south for independence. My flaw is I know too much history. I simply do not accept what the simplified 2nd grade textbook says.... you know the same text book that says we won the War of 1812. I mean 2nd grade textbooks literally say "Britain burned Washington D.C...... and we won!"
As one H.W. Brands, a history professor at UT puts it (im heavivly paraphrasing) "The northerner, who came from pilgrims, believed in american exceptionalism and unity. The southerner, who came from those that saw the southern colonies as a commercial venture, believed in individualism and minding his own business.
Go tell this former NAACP president and member of the sons of confederate veterans what it stood for:
http://www.wect.com/story/29397436/former-naacp-president-vocally-defends-confederate-flag
Ultimately I think one of my UT Law professors put it best: "All you need to know about the civil war is that the south decided things were not working out and tried to leave the north. The north was so attached to the south that the north decided they would rather kill them than see them go. In the end, the north proved that their interpretation of the constitution that no state could leave was the right interpretation through gun violence”
Whatever, everyone is free to believe what they want. If it makes you feel better at night believing the civil war was over slavery and that everyone who thinks otherwise is racist or naive, I will not f*** with your reality anymore. The whole left's "everyone who disagrees with us on anything is wrong, a bigot or ignorant" has gotten old.
Personally I think the Civil War is too big to be over one simple second grade textbook reason. Some fought for slavery, state's rights, independence, keeping the union together, etc. There is evidence of all of it. Life is not black and white. None of us are absolutely right or wrong. Those that disagree with us are not absolutely right or wrong. The failure to comprehend that or how other people see the world is why this country is so damn partisan right now and congress is not getting anything done.
One further point, it's not pro flag people that have a problem moving on. They already moved on. It's the people against the flag, like crocket, that always start these threads and debates and cannot seem to move on. Why are we still arguing about this 150 years later? I do not know, leave it alone and there is nothing to argue about.
Last edited:
Because liberals know more than everyone else and want everyone to be just like them. They want a centralized authority to tell us what to think and how to live. NJ had a pretty decent post above, then felt the political pressure to clarify so nobody would think he was racist.
The liberal model is NYC. I was there last week. Cars were parked on the side of the road like a hurricane evacuation from the gulf coast. Graffiti is literally everywhere - every building and even vehicles. Taxes are outrageous and crime is just a way of life. Put the South down all you want, just don't try to make it like the North.
The liberal model is NYC. I was there last week. Cars were parked on the side of the road like a hurricane evacuation from the gulf coast. Graffiti is literally everywhere - every building and even vehicles. Taxes are outrageous and crime is just a way of life. Put the South down all you want, just don't try to make it like the North.
Htown - great post.
I have always found it odd that the Corwin Amendment is either dismissed or ignored.
The states of Ohio and Illinois ratify the Corwin amendment and then go to war over slavery?
Millions of White men went to war over slavery of the Black man in 1860?
Critical thinking indeed.
The people that fought the war told us why they fought the war and it wasn't over slavery other than pointing out slavery was indeed one of a state's right. Non secession states held the same right until the constitution was amended.
U.S president Woodrow Wilson is quoted as saying “the role of slavery became the proclaimed cause of the Civil War because it was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war for Independence into a war waged for the maintenance and extension of slavery”. He was correct.
I have always found it odd that the Corwin Amendment is either dismissed or ignored.
The states of Ohio and Illinois ratify the Corwin amendment and then go to war over slavery?
Millions of White men went to war over slavery of the Black man in 1860?
Critical thinking indeed.
The people that fought the war told us why they fought the war and it wasn't over slavery other than pointing out slavery was indeed one of a state's right. Non secession states held the same right until the constitution was amended.
U.S president Woodrow Wilson is quoted as saying “the role of slavery became the proclaimed cause of the Civil War because it was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war for Independence into a war waged for the maintenance and extension of slavery”. He was correct.
In my analysis, The Southern States seceded to protect slavery, as evidenced in the written articles of secession in each state. (Who here contends Sotherners weren't smart enough in 1861 to explain why they were seceding?) Northerners went to war to preserve the union. While sentiment in the north was anti-slavery, but I think IDH, you are correct that Yankees weren't willing to start a war to end slavery. Republicans like Lincoln wanted a long term political solution. The Civil War expedited freedom for the slaves at a terrible cost in lives, property destruction and fissured communities.
As far as crediting Robert E. Lee for freeing slaves, he kept them in slavery as long as he could given provisions of his father-in-law's will. The will expressed a preference for freeing the slaves immediately, but provided for freedom 5 years later if economic circumstances required their service to Arlington Plantation. Lee was honorable, but not anti-slavery. He freed the slaves 5 years after his father-in-law died, not one day sooner than provisions of the will demanded.
^ Robert E. Lee. Lee could clearly afford slaves but otherwise did not purchase any. Actually if you read his letters and Lincoln's Address on Colonization to the Committee of Colored Men, Washington D.C. (1862), Lincoln and Lee had very similar views on the topic and on african americans. Both actively supported the Liberia colony. The difference is that Lincoln advocated a quicker end to slavery while Lee was more for waiting around for God to end it, which I admit is not very noble. Lee was probably best described as apathetic, but it is a stretch to say he supported it.
Lee's views were in line with Virginia's. On April 4, 1861 Virginia voted against secession and then on April 12 Fort Sumter was fired upon, Lincoln called for troops, and Virginia seceded in response. Virginia, itself, really seceded over the right to secession and because they did not believe in making war on the southern states more than anything else.
Last edited:
The South seceded over states rights and self determination. The people that seceded tell us that very clearly. Plain and simple. The people that seceded tell us slavery was one of those rights just as clearly is was a right in states that did not secede.
Virginia voted not to secede and then voted to secede when Lincoln called for troops to invade the south. The invading army was not coming through Virginia without a fight. Virginia didn't secede over slavery. Virginia had a choice to invade other states or stand against military aggression and chose to stand with the South and were invaded.
The Southern people fought the war because they were invaded, not over slavery or secession. The South left peaceably (Charleston happened after every opportunity was given for federal forces to leave.) and did not invade the Northern states for control of the Union. Lincoln invaded the south to preserve the union, not over slavery. The term "Civil War" is a Yankee description, not a Southern or proper description. "War of Northern Aggression", "War Between the States" or "The Second American Rebellion" are what the war was/is called by people of the south.
I fear the loss of history with the simple explanations in sound bites in our schools with really no explanations or truth.
I would opine that after 12 years of Holocaust week in our public schools; if a random group of thirty high school seniors
were given a one question test that asked "What was the cause of the second world war", at least 40% of them would answer "The Holocaust". I would also opine the percentage will increase and become the reason.
The same present reasoning/education that makes the cause Civil War over slavery can and will construe World War Two was over the "Holocaust". Neither Slavery nor the Holocaust caused either war.
Shame.
Virginia voted not to secede and then voted to secede when Lincoln called for troops to invade the south. The invading army was not coming through Virginia without a fight. Virginia didn't secede over slavery. Virginia had a choice to invade other states or stand against military aggression and chose to stand with the South and were invaded.
The Southern people fought the war because they were invaded, not over slavery or secession. The South left peaceably (Charleston happened after every opportunity was given for federal forces to leave.) and did not invade the Northern states for control of the Union. Lincoln invaded the south to preserve the union, not over slavery. The term "Civil War" is a Yankee description, not a Southern or proper description. "War of Northern Aggression", "War Between the States" or "The Second American Rebellion" are what the war was/is called by people of the south.
I fear the loss of history with the simple explanations in sound bites in our schools with really no explanations or truth.
I would opine that after 12 years of Holocaust week in our public schools; if a random group of thirty high school seniors
were given a one question test that asked "What was the cause of the second world war", at least 40% of them would answer "The Holocaust". I would also opine the percentage will increase and become the reason.
The same present reasoning/education that makes the cause Civil War over slavery can and will construe World War Two was over the "Holocaust". Neither Slavery nor the Holocaust caused either war.
Shame.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Looking into the numbers, look at how sharply divided the poll is along racial and age vectors.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
My bad, you are right. But it is still being flown by the state on the grounds of the statehouse, in a prominent place near the main public entrance. This constitutes "speech" by the state, which is governed by different standards than is speech by a private company or citizen.
Those pesky northerners. They interfered when the south didn't want slaves to be freed. They interfered when the south didn't want blacks to be allowed to vote. They interfered when the south wanted to keep blacks separate from whites. They interfered when whites refused to prosecute other whites who dragged blacks behind pickup trucks. They interfered when whites refused to allow blacks to attend white universities. They interfered when blacks and whites were blocked from marrying each other.
Admittedly, the current interference is for something much less important than the issues cited above. But you are defending perilous territory when you complain about northern interference as a historical matter.
The civil war was fought over many things, and you are right that it is an oversimplification to say that it was "about slavery". However, slavery was certainly one of the key issues, and I think the stronger argument is that it was the single biggest issue.
By the way, I'm not suggesting that the north wanted to eliminate slavery, and went to war to do so. The north wanted to impose incremental limitations on slavery, perhaps ultimately phasing it out over a period of decades. The south refused to accept those limitations, and declared independence in part (large part?) to avoid them.
Regardless, the modern flag debate is about much more than the Civil War. In the 100+ years since then, the Confederate flag has repeatedly been used as a symbol of white supremacy and hostility to the rights of blacks. Flying it with pride is an affront to blacks.
The Corwin Amendment was passed by Congress after secession had begun. It was ratified by only 3 states iirc. We will never know whether the amendment would have stopped the Civil War if it had come to fruition.
Nobody is saying the south was committed to expanding slavery -- just that they were committed to preserving it.
Fighting for independence, yes -- but why? There were two key reasons the south wanted independence: avoiding tariffs and protecting the institution of slavery.
FIFY
As a Jew, I would be offended if a state were proudly flying a black-and-white swastika flag. I think blacks have the right to feel the same way about the Confederate flag. They shouldn't move on until the issue is resolved.
And while people are outraged over a flag tying it to the crazed person who killed 9 innocent people; in Chicago ALONE 12 people were killed and 70 shot over July 4th week end while 9 people were killed the week before but none of those shootings were by a white loon with a Confederate Flag.
In 2014 during same week end 82 were shot and 14 killed. In 13 73 were shot but only 11 were killed. Their aim must be getting better.
This is only one city. This goes on in way too many cities year after year after year The majority of the murders were black on black.
Unless one thinks the blacks are killing other blacks because they are outraged over the Confederate Flag people are pretty stilly to spend so much time emotion and faux anger over a flag.
The fact that no one not even BO seems to care enough to do something about this reveals exactly how political the flag flap is.
In 2014 during same week end 82 were shot and 14 killed. In 13 73 were shot but only 11 were killed. Their aim must be getting better.
This is only one city. This goes on in way too many cities year after year after year The majority of the murders were black on black.
Unless one thinks the blacks are killing other blacks because they are outraged over the Confederate Flag people are pretty stilly to spend so much time emotion and faux anger over a flag.
The fact that no one not even BO seems to care enough to do something about this reveals exactly how political the flag flap is.
Last edited:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
