Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 25 June 2015, 10:12:50
Perhaps the American people are finally starting to wake up and enter the modern world.
Post by: Air tree on Thu, 25 June 2015, 10:19:28
Post by: Halverson on Thu, 25 June 2015, 10:24:02
Post by: Halverson on Thu, 25 June 2015, 10:28:27
Post by: Computer-Lab in Basement on Thu, 25 June 2015, 10:35:15
Post by: Flyersfan1 on Thu, 25 June 2015, 10:36:00
First, Confederate flags are coming down all over the place, and now the Supreme Court has upheld Affordable Healthcare subsidies.Conservatives are likely going to very upset with Justice Roberts now after the latest Obamacare decision. Any future republican president is going to be forced by his base to appoint a Supreme Court justice so extreme right that they require all American's to get a tattoo of the confederate flag.
Perhaps the American people are finally starting to wake up and enter the modern world.
Next thing you know we'll have universal healthcare and a good education system. :))
I wish we had a single payer system like Canada has. They don't have to deal with insurance companies that have nothing to do with helping people.
Post by: demik on Thu, 25 June 2015, 11:28:40
DONT MESS WITH TEXAS.
it's all the Mexicans' fault anyway.
Post by: vivalarevolución on Thu, 25 June 2015, 13:46:19
Post by: BlueNalgene on Thu, 25 June 2015, 14:28:26
Post by: iamtootallforthis on Thu, 25 June 2015, 14:29:38
I don't agree with the forced removal of the confederate flag. Don't get me wrong, the folks that plaster it over their trucks and talk about how they only view it as a symbol of state's rights disgust me. But any law which would mandate the removal of it from state property is possibly in violation of the first amendment. At what point does the racial symbolism outweigh the historicity of the image? Should my state flag be a blank blue field so we can remove the racial symbols of the region? There is no group whom is free from their own hate-filled past. Whitewashing is not the solution.
I am pretty sure it is just removing it from government property.
Post by: BlueNalgene on Thu, 25 June 2015, 14:32:53
I don't agree with the forced removal of the confederate flag. Don't get me wrong, the folks that plaster it over their trucks and talk about how they only view it as a symbol of state's rights disgust me. But any law which would mandate the removal of it from state property is possibly in violation of the first amendment. At what point does the racial symbolism outweigh the historicity of the image? Should my state flag be a blank blue field so we can remove the racial symbols of the region? There is no group whom is free from their own hate-filled past. Whitewashing is not the solution.
I am pretty sure it is just removing it from government property.
Yeah, but the separation of symbols and state is not built into the law, only the separation of church and state. Therefore, I'm arguing it is lawful to remove the 10 commandments but not the flag of the confederacy.
Post by: iamtootallforthis on Thu, 25 June 2015, 14:34:00
I don't agree with the forced removal of the confederate flag. Don't get me wrong, the folks that plaster it over their trucks and talk about how they only view it as a symbol of state's rights disgust me. But any law which would mandate the removal of it from state property is possibly in violation of the first amendment. At what point does the racial symbolism outweigh the historicity of the image? Should my state flag be a blank blue field so we can remove the racial symbols of the region? There is no group whom is free from their own hate-filled past. Whitewashing is not the solution.
I am pretty sure it is just removing it from government property.
Yeah, but the separation of symbols and state is not built into the law, only the separation of church and state. Therefore, I'm arguing it is lawful to remove the 10 commandments but not the flag of the confederacy.
It is really up to the state lawmakers though to remove it from each state.
Post by: BlueNalgene on Thu, 25 June 2015, 14:37:48
I don't agree with the forced removal of the confederate flag. Don't get me wrong, the folks that plaster it over their trucks and talk about how they only view it as a symbol of state's rights disgust me. But any law which would mandate the removal of it from state property is possibly in violation of the first amendment. At what point does the racial symbolism outweigh the historicity of the image? Should my state flag be a blank blue field so we can remove the racial symbols of the region? There is no group whom is free from their own hate-filled past. Whitewashing is not the solution.
I am pretty sure it is just removing it from government property.
Yeah, but the separation of symbols and state is not built into the law, only the separation of church and state. Therefore, I'm arguing it is lawful to remove the 10 commandments but not the flag of the confederacy.
It is really up to the state lawmakers though to remove it from each state.
Yeah. It isn't a national issue. The irony is thick though. It is the state's right to display the symbol of States' Rights free from jurisdiction of the right State.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Thu, 25 June 2015, 14:54:49
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 25 June 2015, 15:27:12
I don't agree with the forced removal of the confederate flag.
This is my feeling, too.
That is why I used the passive voice "flags are coming down" - anything means more when done deliberate premeditation.
I absolutely believe that a person has the right to fly a Confederate flag, just as they have the right to burn an American flag.
That is what free speech is all about, like it or not.
Post by: digi on Thu, 25 June 2015, 15:31:45
I'm disappointed in the backlash against the confederate flag. Why? Because the flag served as a self-identifying symbol of a backwards idiot living in a bygone era. When I would see a person displaying the confederate flag, I did not have to do any further investigation to discover if the person I may interact with was an idiot. Now I will have to waste more time to discover if a person is an idiot, rather than having an overtly displayed symbol to do the work for me. fml.
I usually do the same thing except I just assume everyone at Walmart owns a Confederate Flag.
Post by: kurplop on Thu, 25 June 2015, 15:53:55
What I am seeing today is no different than the same bullying and group think that convinced some of our southern ancestors to actually think that owning human slaves was right. If an intelligent point or argument can further the issue, that would be great. Shouting louder than the opposition, belittling others long standing beliefs which we probably misunderstand, and ridiculing anyone that holds opinions contrary to ours is a recipe for more division.
Is it possible that there may be confederate flag wavers that love their State and truly believe that a State shouldn't be absolutely governed by the Federal Government? This sound more like something from Plato's Republic or Montesquieu than material to spark a rallying cry to insult people who disagree with our way of thinking.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Thu, 25 June 2015, 15:57:24
I have no attachment to the confederate flag and insofar as it represents past evils to so many, maybe it's prudent to retire it from public property. I am however concerned that the racism and bigotry that we are trying to get past is being replaced by a new prejudice and bigotry. To imply and suggest that all who honor the confederate flag are displaying their backwards ignorance, bigotry and racism is to be guilty of the same sense of superiority possessed by true racists. Using different words, it still says the same thing. "Those people aren't like us. They are stupid, beneath us, and their lives and ideas should not only be marginalized but silenced."
What I am seeing today is no different than the same bullying and group think that convinced some of our southern ancestors to actually think that owning human slaves was right. If an intelligent point or argument can further the issue, that would be great. Shouting louder than the opposition, belittling others long standing beliefs which we probably misunderstand, and ridiculing anyone that holds opinions contrary to ours is a recipe for more division.
Is it possible that there may be confederate flag wavers that love their State and truly believe that a State shouldn't be absolutely governed by the Federal Government? This sound more like something from Plato's Republic or Montesquieu than material to spark a rallying cry to insult people who disagree with our way of thinking.
I was hoping someone would point this out. Thank you.
Post by: BlueNalgene on Thu, 25 June 2015, 16:43:52
I have no attachment to the confederate flag and insofar as it represents past evils to so many, maybe it's prudent to retire it from public property. I am however concerned that the racism and bigotry that we are trying to get past is being replaced by a new prejudice and bigotry. To imply and suggest that all who honor the confederate flag are displaying their backwards ignorance, bigotry and racism is to be guilty of the same sense of superiority possessed by true racists. Using different words, it still says the same thing. "Those people aren't like us. They are stupid, beneath us, and their lives and ideas should not only be marginalized but silenced."
What I am seeing today is no different than the same bullying and group think that convinced some of our southern ancestors to actually think that owning human slaves was right. If an intelligent point or argument can further the issue, that would be great. Shouting louder than the opposition, belittling others long standing beliefs which we probably misunderstand, and ridiculing anyone that holds opinions contrary to ours is a recipe for more division.
Is it possible that there may be confederate flag wavers that love their State and truly believe that a State shouldn't be absolutely governed by the Federal Government? This sound more like something from Plato's Republic or Montesquieu than material to spark a rallying cry to insult people who disagree with our way of thinking.
In my opinion, the stars and bars is a terrible symbol for state's rights. The primary goal of the confederate rebellion was the retention of slaves as property. The idea that the state should be able to choose this path is secondary to the vile idea behind it. If someone were to display the flag under this pretense, it would only evidence his or her ignorance. Again, the theme of whitewashing history comes back.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Thu, 25 June 2015, 17:08:57
I have no attachment to the confederate flag and insofar as it represents past evils to so many, maybe it's prudent to retire it from public property. I am however concerned that the racism and bigotry that we are trying to get past is being replaced by a new prejudice and bigotry. To imply and suggest that all who honor the confederate flag are displaying their backwards ignorance, bigotry and racism is to be guilty of the same sense of superiority possessed by true racists. Using different words, it still says the same thing. "Those people aren't like us. They are stupid, beneath us, and their lives and ideas should not only be marginalized but silenced."
What I am seeing today is no different than the same bullying and group think that convinced some of our southern ancestors to actually think that owning human slaves was right. If an intelligent point or argument can further the issue, that would be great. Shouting louder than the opposition, belittling others long standing beliefs which we probably misunderstand, and ridiculing anyone that holds opinions contrary to ours is a recipe for more division.
Is it possible that there may be confederate flag wavers that love their State and truly believe that a State shouldn't be absolutely governed by the Federal Government? This sound more like something from Plato's Republic or Montesquieu than material to spark a rallying cry to insult people who disagree with our way of thinking.
In my opinion, the stars and bars is a terrible symbol for state's rights. The primary goal of the confederate rebellion was the retention of slaves as property. The idea that the state should be able to choose this path is secondary to the vile idea behind it. If someone were to display the flag under this pretense, it would only evidence his or her ignorance. Again, the theme of whitewashing history comes back.
As you say, slavery is vile. And, whether southerners admit it or not, the Battle Flag of the Confederacy has come to be the symbol of modern day bigots and racists, who I would imagine most southerners would not want to be identified with. So while it might be trampling on the rights of some to say they can't fly the flag of their choosing, I think it does need to be removed from public places.
However, I do think that saying the reason to fight was slavery, for the average Civil War era southerner, is in itself a whitewashing of history by the victors of the war.
Several facts support this:
Less than 6% of Confederate men owned any slaves at all.
Lincoln himself states in his inaugural address that the war is about preserving the union, not ending slavery.
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the south, with Grant quoted as implying it was mainly a military tactic to encourage rebellion from within.
Another interesting tidbit is that a section of NYC was also rumored to try to secede because of their dependence on the cotton economy. The Union stationed troops on every block to put down any secessionist movements.
Post by: rowdy on Thu, 25 June 2015, 17:15:22
Who is winning in this situation?
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 25 June 2015, 17:35:43
Lincoln himself states in his inaugural address that the war is about preserving the union, not ending slavery.
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in thesouth, seceded states
Grant issued a military order on his own that went beyond Lincoln's intent and angered Lincoln
it was mainly a military tactic to encourage rebellion from within and encourage former slaves to work and fight for the US
"Team of Rivals" by DK Goodwin is an excellent read, I highly recommend it.
But today's "confederate mentality" goes far beyond goals of the slave-owners' rebellion [disclosure: I an a descendant of slave-owners and Indian-killers] and implicitly (and often explicitly) often advocates for the removal of all non-white, non-European, non-Christian peoples from US soil, sometimes "by any means necessary"
I respect the right of those people to fly the flags that they want, and express their views verbally, but I absolutely do not believe that they have any right whatsoever to violate the laws of the land or to claim that their "God's laws supersede Man's laws"
These attitudes and behaviors, are, of course, what make the Muslim/Hebrew/Republicans around on the other side of the world so repugnant.
In the Treaty of Tripoli, the first major international treaty that the US entered into, it was specifically and unequivocally stated that the US is not a "Christian" nation and that we do not have any inherent quarrel, religious or otherwise, with any "Mohammedan" nation.
Post by: kurplop on Thu, 25 June 2015, 17:36:34
I have no attachment to the confederate flag and insofar as it represents past evils to so many, maybe it's prudent to retire it from public property. I am however concerned that the racism and bigotry that we are trying to get past is being replaced by a new prejudice and bigotry. To imply and suggest that all who honor the confederate flag are displaying their backwards ignorance, bigotry and racism is to be guilty of the same sense of superiority possessed by true racists. Using different words, it still says the same thing. "Those people aren't like us. They are stupid, beneath us, and their lives and ideas should not only be marginalized but silenced."
What I am seeing today is no different than the same bullying and group think that convinced some of our southern ancestors to actually think that owning human slaves was right. If an intelligent point or argument can further the issue, that would be great. Shouting louder than the opposition, belittling others long standing beliefs which we probably misunderstand, and ridiculing anyone that holds opinions contrary to ours is a recipe for more division.
Is it possible that there may be confederate flag wavers that love their State and truly believe that a State shouldn't be absolutely governed by the Federal Government? This sound more like something from Plato's Republic or Montesquieu than material to spark a rallying cry to insult people who disagree with our way of thinking.
In my opinion, the stars and bars is a terrible symbol for state's rights. The primary goal of the confederate rebellion was the retention of slaves as property. The idea that the state should be able to choose this path is secondary to the vile idea behind it. If someone were to display the flag under this pretense, it would only evidence his or her ignorance. Again, the theme of whitewashing history comes back.
I'm not disputing your statement that the confederate flag is a terrible symbol, at least today. When a symbol stops meaning what it was suppose to mean then its usefulness as a symbol is diminished. I guess I'm ignorant or maybe hopeful because I do suspect that majority of southern soldiers fought for reasons other than the continuance of slavery. I don't know the statistics but would suspect that most rebel soldiers weren't slaveowners. Most probably weren't even property owners. How did slavery help them? If anything they were competition for the working class which likely filled their lines. At worst the majority may have been duped into believing a lie spread by those who would profit. The documented bravery and persistence of the soldiers would suggest otherwise. Why would we want to think the worst of so many peoples ancestors with only a hint of evidence? Should we also lower the American flag. After all, there were greedy landowners among the founders, some also slaveholders, who were instrumental in the rebellion against England.
I'm not recommending that we whitewash the the past but to say that it was all bad can be inflammatory. Hopefully, we can learn from the past, be better, and not repeat past mistakes. That was the point of my last entry.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Thu, 25 June 2015, 17:38:57
Lincoln himself states in his inaugural address that the war is about preserving the union, not ending slavery.
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in thesouth, seceded states
Grant issued a military order on his own that went beyond Lincoln's intent and angered Lincoln
it was mainly a military tactic to encourage rebellion from within and encourage former slaves to work and fight for the US
"Team of Rivals" by DK Goodwin is an excellent read, I highly recommend it.
But today's "confederate mentality" goes far beyond goals of the slave-owners' rebellion [disclosure: I an a descendant of slave-owners and Indian-killers] and implicitly (and often explicitly) often advocates for the removal of all non-white, non-European, non-Christian peoples from US soil, sometimes "by any means necessary"
I respect the right of those people to fly the flags that they want, and express their views verbally, but I absolutely do not believe that they have any right whatsoever to violate the laws of the land or to claim that their "God's laws supersede Man's laws"
These attitudes and behaviors, are, of course, what make the Muslim/Hebrew/Republicans around on the other side of the world so repugnant.
In the Treaty of Tripoli, the first major international treaty that the US entered into, it was specifically and unequivocally stated that the US is not a "Christian" nation and that we do not have any inherent quarrel, religious or otherwise, with any "Mohammedan" nation.
I don't quite understand what you mean with the rest of it, but I agree that the "modern confederate" is primarily focused on racism tendencies (though I don't want to generalize).
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 25 June 2015, 17:44:44
I don't quite understand what you mean with the rest of it,
Google it, don't take my word.
Post by: kurplop on Thu, 25 June 2015, 18:06:33
But today's "confederate mentality" goes far beyond goals of the slave-owners' rebellion [disclosure: I an a descendant of slave-owners and Indian-killers] and implicitly (and often explicitly) often advocates for the removal of all non-white, non-European, non-Christian peoples from US soil, sometimes "by any means necessary"
I respect the right of those people to fly the flags that they want, and express their views verbally, but I absolutely do not believe that they have any right whatsoever to violate the laws of the land or to claim that their "God's laws supersede Man's laws"
Not being from the South I have little experience with overt racism and our thinking is probably closer than some might think.
Freedom of speech is a right in this country and I'm glad it is. It can expose faulty thinking on both sides if an argument and better clarify a position. With any freedom we also have the ability to abuse or misuse it. My concern is that half truths and flippancy delivered with a mob mentality using slogans and aggression usually leads to division.
You've been critical of religion but you seem to have overlooked a shining example of real Christianity in action. I suspect that the outpouring of love and forgiveness by the affected church members in Charleston will do more to mend fences and build unity than any of our rants; as interesting as they may be.
Post by: R1N3 on Thu, 25 June 2015, 18:13:07
I'm disappointed in the backlash against the confederate flag. Why? Because the flag served as a self-identifying symbol of a backwards idiot living in a bygone era. When I would see a person displaying the confederate flag, I did not have to do any further investigation to discover if the person I may interact with was an idiot. Now I will have to waste more time to discover if a person is an idiot, rather than having an overtly displayed symbol to do the work for me. fml.
"Anyone who might seem to look or think differently than me is wrong, and an idiot."
This line of reasoning is exactly what's wrong with America.
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 25 June 2015, 18:16:21
You've been critical of religion but you seem to have overlooked a shining example of real Christianity in action.
I grew up as a devout Presbyterian. Today I am a raging atheist.
Still, I could accept an argument that Jesus was the greatest man who has ever lived, in spite of the fact that he was a devout Jew.
Jesus was not a Christian, and I suspect that he would have been appalled by much of what has been done in his name.
Go figure.
Post by: BlueNalgene on Thu, 25 June 2015, 18:30:05
I'm not disputing your statement that the confederate flag is a terrible symbol, at least today. When a symbol stops meaning what it was suppose to mean then its usefulness as a symbol is diminished. I guess I'm ignorant or maybe hopeful because I do suspect that majority of southern soldiers fought for reasons other than the continuance of slavery. I don't know the statistics but would suspect that most rebel soldiers weren't slaveowners. Most probably weren't even property owners. How did slavery help them? If anything they were competition for the working class which likely filled their lines. At worst the majority may have been duped into believing a lie spread by those who would profit. The documented bravery and persistence of the soldiers would suggest otherwise. Why would we want to think the worst of so many peoples ancestors with only a hint of evidence? Should we also lower the American flag. After all, there were greedy landowners among the founders, some also slaveholders, who were instrumental in the rebellion against England.
I mostly address this below in reply to HPS' comment. Some things specifically you bring up that he doesn't are about competition. Slaves were not perceived to compete for a niche with the non-slave whites. This was an era before Marxist thought was a popular idea in the US. Whether they did compete or not is something I am not an adequate enough historian to answer.
You bring up a strong point about the intense bravado of the Southern resistance. Indeed many of them were fighting for their home rather than something as esoteric as a law or ideal.
I'm not recommending that we whitewash the the past but to say that it was all bad can be inflammatory. Hopefully, we can learn from the past, be better, and not repeat past mistakes. That was the point of my last entry.
I agree with your main point. I hope I'm not coming across as having no respect for others. It is hard to talk about these issues, especially when you support certain unsavory sides, without sounding like a ****.
Addressing heedpantsnow's individual points:
As you say, slavery is vile. And, whether southerners admit it or not, the Battle Flag of the Confederacy has come to be the symbol of modern day bigots and racists, who I would imagine most southerners would not want to be identified with. So while it might be trampling on the rights of some to say they can't fly the flag of their choosing, I think it does need to be removed from public places.
At the core, true freedom demands that no person or group have any freedom taken from them at the behest of any other person or group. Perhaps I fail to acknowledge legitimate gray areas, but I believe all rights must be granted to all parties at all times. No exceptions. While I agree that flying the (unaltered) confederate flag on government grounds is wrong for treason reasons, I say that inclusion of the confederate flag within state symbols is not wrong, just in poor taste.
However, I do think that saying the reason to fight was slavery, for the average Civil War era southerner, is in itself a whitewashing of history by the victors of the war.
Several facts support this:
Less than 6% of Confederate men owned any slaves at all.
Lincoln himself states in his inaugural address that the war is about preserving the union, not ending slavery.
While it may not have been 100% of the reason for all parties (I doubt that the black Confederate troops were fighting for their own chains), it cannot be ruled out. The masses could not afford slaves, but they fought against banning slavery because it was challenging their worldview. The social order existed and would be defended. The state's rights issue was just a vessel for the slave issue.
Owning a slave was not a prerequisite for supporting slavery. I would parallel that being in the 1% is not a prerequisite for supporting pro-business legislation today. However, the perception of the Civil War by the North and the South was very different. Few Northern fighters had strong abolitionist leanings, and those few are dwarfed by those in the Southern ranks who supported slavery. (Wikipedia citation because this is just an internet discussion not a book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Emancipation)) The American Revolution barely had majority support with the colonial citizens (if that), yet it still succeeded and became the law of the land.
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the south, with Grant quoted as implying it was mainly a military tactic to encourage rebellion from within.
Another interesting tidbit is that a section of NYC was also rumored to try to secede because of their dependence on the cotton economy. The Union stationed troops on every block to put down any secessionist movements.
Totally. The Emancipation Proclamation was not only a tactic, but a hollow one at that. It only freed slaves within the South on paper - not in reality.
I didn't know the tidbit about NYC. It has been a while since History class.
Post by: tbc on Thu, 25 June 2015, 18:47:40
First, Confederate flags are coming down all over the place, and now the Supreme Court has upheld Affordable Healthcare subsidies.Conservatives are likely going to very upset with Justice Roberts now after the latest Obamacare decision. Any future republican president is going to be forced by his base to appoint a Supreme Court justice so extreme right that they require all American's to get a tattoo of the confederate flag.
Perhaps the American people are finally starting to wake up and enter the modern world.Next thing you know we'll have universal healthcare and a good education system. :))
I wish we had a single payer system like Canada has. They don't have to deal with insurance companies that have nothing to do with helping people.
i suspect that american decline in education is caused by the bat**** amount of 'legislative' knowledge that american have to know on a daily basis to survive. how to deal with cops, how to deal with healthcare, how to deal violent folk with guns (different people than the cops), how to deal with bankers (different than violent folk with guns)
west coast canadian life is a piece of cake
Post by: jdcarpe on Thu, 25 June 2015, 19:33:27
The 10th Amendment is just as important as the 1st.
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 25 June 2015, 19:43:50
Read the words for yourself:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394560/-So-The-Confederacy-Didn-t-Go-To-War-Over-Slavery (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394560/-So-The-Confederacy-Didn-t-Go-To-War-Over-Slavery)
PS - the South would have been infinitely better off if Lincoln had not been assassinated
Post by: BlueNalgene on Thu, 25 June 2015, 20:00:10
As someone who was raised and still lives in a former Confederate state, I believe I can speak to the meaning behind the Stars and Bars to most people who live in the South today. People here display that flag as a symbol of independent spirit and, yes, rebellion against the idea of federal authority as being supreme. After the atrocities that the Feds perpetrated against the former Confederate states, I can hardly blame Southerners for wanting something as a symbol to rally behind. It has nothing to do with a desire to return to the days of slavery, or of racist attitudes by whites toward blacks. Those that don't live in the southern states probably don't understand why Southerners feel so strongly about states' rights, but it is ingrained in our psyche.
The 10th Amendment is just as important as the 1st.
Nitpick
Texas never seceded. It was never a confederated state.
Post by: jdcarpe on Thu, 25 June 2015, 20:09:20
I'm pretty sure it did, and was. Hence the flag of the Confederacy is one of the "six flags over Texas."As someone who was raised and still lives in a former Confederate state, I believe I can speak to the meaning behind the Stars and Bars to most people who live in the South today. People here display that flag as a symbol of independent spirit and, yes, rebellion against the idea of federal authority as being supreme. After the atrocities that the Feds perpetrated against the former Confederate states, I can hardly blame Southerners for wanting something as a symbol to rally behind. It has nothing to do with a desire to return to the days of slavery, or of racist attitudes by whites toward blacks. Those that don't live in the southern states probably don't understand why Southerners feel so strongly about states' rights, but it is ingrained in our psyche.
The 10th Amendment is just as important as the 1st.
Nitpick
Texas never seceded. It was never a confederated state.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Thu, 25 June 2015, 20:19:29
I'm pretty sure it did, and was. Hence the flag of the Confederacy is one of the "six flags over Texas."As someone who was raised and still lives in a former Confederate state, I believe I can speak to the meaning behind the Stars and Bars to most people who live in the South today. People here display that flag as a symbol of independent spirit and, yes, rebellion against the idea of federal authority as being supreme. After the atrocities that the Feds perpetrated against the former Confederate states, I can hardly blame Southerners for wanting something as a symbol to rally behind. It has nothing to do with a desire to return to the days of slavery, or of racist attitudes by whites toward blacks. Those that don't live in the southern states probably don't understand why Southerners feel so strongly about states' rights, but it is ingrained in our psyche.
The 10th Amendment is just as important as the 1st.
Nitpick
Texas never seceded. It was never a confederated state.
I actually think it was something like they seceded but didn't know the Confederacy had surrendered.
Post by: BlueNalgene on Thu, 25 June 2015, 20:28:05
I'm pretty sure it did, and was. Hence the flag of the Confederacy is one of the "six flags over Texas."As someone who was raised and still lives in a former Confederate state, I believe I can speak to the meaning behind the Stars and Bars to most people who live in the South today. People here display that flag as a symbol of independent spirit and, yes, rebellion against the idea of federal authority as being supreme. After the atrocities that the Feds perpetrated against the former Confederate states, I can hardly blame Southerners for wanting something as a symbol to rally behind. It has nothing to do with a desire to return to the days of slavery, or of racist attitudes by whites toward blacks. Those that don't live in the southern states probably don't understand why Southerners feel so strongly about states' rights, but it is ingrained in our psyche.
The 10th Amendment is just as important as the 1st.
Nitpick
Texas never seceded. It was never a confederated state.
I actually think it was something like they seceded but didn't know the Confederacy had surrendered.
Ah, my bad. Retracted.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Thu, 25 June 2015, 20:28:26
The Civil War was conducted over "The Institution" of slavery, pure and simple. Regardless of how apologists attempt to re-write history.
Read the words for yourself:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394560/-So-The-Confederacy-Didn-t-Go-To-War-Over-Slavery (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394560/-So-The-Confederacy-Didn-t-Go-To-War-Over-Slavery)
PS - the South would have been infinitely better off if Lincoln had not been assassinated
Lol. That's old news. And factual actually.
The problem is that those declarations were written by that 6% who owned slaves (or more precisely the 3% who owned 80%).
Politics then, even more than now, was a rich man's game.
Another interesting tidbit: the top 10% of the Confederate population comprised less than 1% of the soldiers (and were almost exclusively officers). They bought their way out of conscription.
Read up on the economics of the southern states, imbalance in the House due to rising northern population density, and specific bills and taxes on cotton that were passed in the years leading up to the war. It's really interesting.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Thu, 25 June 2015, 20:33:41
I'm pretty sure it did, and was. Hence the flag of the Confederacy is one of the "six flags over Texas."As someone who was raised and still lives in a former Confederate state, I believe I can speak to the meaning behind the Stars and Bars to most people who live in the South today. People here display that flag as a symbol of independent spirit and, yes, rebellion against the idea of federal authority as being supreme. After the atrocities that the Feds perpetrated against the former Confederate states, I can hardly blame Southerners for wanting something as a symbol to rally behind. It has nothing to do with a desire to return to the days of slavery, or of racist attitudes by whites toward blacks. Those that don't live in the southern states probably don't understand why Southerners feel so strongly about states' rights, but it is ingrained in our psyche.
The 10th Amendment is just as important as the 1st.
Nitpick
Texas never seceded. It was never a confederated state.
I actually think it was something like they seceded but didn't know the Confederacy had surrendered.
Ah, my bad. Retracted.
Well I can't find that now in any of my notes. Seems they seceded somewhat early (1861), but there was divided support for the Confederacy in the state.
So I'm just dead wrong there.
Post by: baldgye on Fri, 26 June 2015, 04:09:42
If your identity can be summarized by a few colours and some patterns, you probably have a ****ed up identity.
Post by: paicrai on Thu, 02 July 2015, 12:20:45
Post by: SpAmRaY on Thu, 02 July 2015, 13:24:32
Post by: C5Allroad on Thu, 02 July 2015, 13:52:53
All because some crazy man...
Post by: demik on Thu, 02 July 2015, 13:58:40
Hurray separation of church and state
Post by: C5Allroad on Thu, 02 July 2015, 14:05:38
Apple is removing all apps that have the flag in it.
Post by: Findecanor on Thu, 02 July 2015, 16:28:28
Post by: Air tree on Thu, 02 July 2015, 16:34:22
So the U.S. is pretty much erasing history?Apple has put all the apps that where taken down, back on their app store. They just can't have the Confederate flag in their photo for their app.
Apple is removing all apps that have the flag in it.
Post by: C5Allroad on Thu, 02 July 2015, 16:36:40
Apple is stupid.So the U.S. is pretty much erasing history?Apple has put all the apps that where taken down, back on their app store. They just can't have the Confederate flag in their photo for their app.
Apple is removing all apps that have the flag in it.
Post by: paicrai on Thu, 02 July 2015, 16:51:15
well (im speaking generally) when ur a company that size id say pandering to a bunch of cynical internet kids and their fancy booksmarts would do nothing but appease the opinions of ppl who will fight u if u go with apples functional small metal box over another brand small metal box they like moreApple is stupid.So the U.S. is pretty much erasing history?Apple has put all the apps that where taken down, back on their app store. They just can't have the Confederate flag in their photo for their app.
Apple is removing all apps that have the flag in it.
Post by: ander on Thu, 02 July 2015, 17:03:35
First, Confederate flags are coming down all over the place...
Well, it does make a lot of sense. As I heard one guy point out on the radio, the German government doesn't fly the Nazi flag over their buildings.
Post by: Air tree on Thu, 02 July 2015, 17:34:50
Nor do we fly the union jack.First, Confederate flags are coming down all over the place...
Well, it does make a lot of sense. As I heard one guy point out on the radio, the German government doesn't fly the Nazi flag over their buildings.
Because flying the flag of a government that has been defunct for over 150 years makes sense.
Post by: Findecanor on Thu, 02 July 2015, 17:40:22
As I heard one guy point out on the radio, the German government doesn't fly the Nazi flag over their buildings.They are not even comparable The Nazis was a party that had taken over the whole country with force, and then invaded other countries. As such, even for the Germans it is a symbol of aggression.
The Confederates were a collection of states that wanted to get out of a union, not take over the union - as such it is a symbol of independence.
By the way, the Nazi flag is illegal in Germany. Even using it for journalistic or quasi-documentary purposes is skirting the rules.
Post by: ander on Mon, 06 July 2015, 16:39:24
Well, it does make a lot of sense. As I heard one guy point out on the radio, the German government doesn't fly the Nazi flag over their buildings.
Nor do we fly the union jack...
I'm not sure I'd put the Brits on the same level, though (despite their cooking).
[The Nazis and Confederates] are not even comparable The Nazis was a party that had taken over the whole country with force, and then invaded other countries... The Confederates were a collection of states that wanted to get out of a union, not take over the union - as such it is a symbol of independence.
Dunno about that. Mostly it was about slavery—capturing entire villages of people at gunpoint, transporting them to other places, and treating them like animals. Hmm, that does sound familiar.
Unlike the Nazis, slave owners didn't have a policy of murdering their "possessions". After all, they paid good money for them. However, because slaves weren't considered people, their "owners" were free to treat them however they wished—including raping them (and considering any resulting children slaves, too) and killing them for insubordination, trying to escape, or any other reason.
Consider too than nearly half of kidnapped Africans died before they even reached the U.S., because of the horrendous conditions on slave ships. (BTW, this, and not some kind of genetic predisposition, is why so many American blacks are unusually strong and athletic: The weaker ones were "weeded out" in a gruesome, artificial evolutionary process.)
So if you ask me, the Confederate flag, while not quite as terrible a reminder as the Nazi flag, isn't far behind. YMMV of course.
By the way, the Nazi flag is illegal in Germany. Even using it for journalistic or quasi-documentary purposes is skirting the rules.
That's encouraging. If they can own up to their history, maybe we can too, once we're willing to stop romanticizing it.
Post by: hwood34 on Mon, 06 July 2015, 16:59:52
OK so first off, rarely were slaves killed for any reason, as you said before slaves were expensive as hell so it would be stupid just to get rid of them like that. Also, find me the evidence to suggest that there was any sort of selective breeding happening with slaves. This pseudo-science gets brought up constantly but there's no hard evidence to suggesting it ever happened on a large scale. If they were, why would they risk harming the gene pool by raping the slaves? You know where lots of athletes also come out of? Africa. If anything, blacks' success in sports can be more attributed to their poverty following slavery for so many years. Athletics, especially sports like basketball or baseball, are substantially more accessible to lower-income families.Well, it does make a lot of sense. As I heard one guy point out on the radio, the German government doesn't fly the Nazi flag over their buildings.
Nor do we fly the union jack...
I'm not sure I'd put the Brits on the same level, though (despite their cooking).[The Nazis and Confederates] are not even comparable The Nazis was a party that had taken over the whole country with force, and then invaded other countries... The Confederates were a collection of states that wanted to get out of a union, not take over the union - as such it is a symbol of independence.
Dunno about that. Mostly it was about slavery—capturing entire villages of people at gunpoint, transporting them to other places, and treating them like animals. Hmm, that does sound familiar.
Unlike the Nazis, slave owners didn't have a policy of murdering their "possessions". After all, they paid good money for them. However, because slaves weren't considered people, their "owners" were free to treat them however they wished—including raping them (and considering any resulting children slaves, too) and killing them for insubordination, trying to escape, or any other reason.
Consider too than nearly half of kidnapped Africans died before they even reached the U.S., because of the horrendous conditions on slave ships. (BTW, this, and not some kind of genetic predisposition, is why so many American blacks are unusually strong and athletic: The weaker ones were "weeded out" in a gruesome, artificial evolutionary process.)
I can't see how you could even say the Confederacy is even comparable to the Nazis in that regard. The Nazis committed some of the atrocities known to man. Lots of people in the south didn't even have slaves, they just felt that they were being treated unfairly because the north was pushing for more tariffs and sanctioned trade which hurt the South's economy as a whole.
Post by: ander on Mon, 06 July 2015, 17:13:43
Let's put it this way then: How terrible does something have to be before it makes sense to stop glorifying it?
I'm not black, and I don't live in the U.S. South—but it's not too hard for me to imagine how someone like that feels when they see the symbol of their ancestors' dehumanization waving from public buildings.
Post by: hwood34 on Mon, 06 July 2015, 17:24:51
Gee, I guess slavery wasn't so bad, then. Thanks for straightening me out. You never know what you'll learn around here.Oh yea, good that's what you took from my statement, that's exactly what I said.
:?|
Post by: hwood34 on Mon, 06 July 2015, 17:37:08
Gee, I guess slavery wasn't so bad, then. Thanks for straightening me out. You never know what you'll learn around here. :?|ok again, read the above statement
Let's put it this way then: How terrible does something have to be before it makes sense to stop glorifying it?
I'm not black, and I don't live in the U.S. South—but it's not too hard for me to imagine how someone like that feels when they see the symbol of their ancestors' dehumanization waving from public buildings.
Post by: ander on Mon, 06 July 2015, 18:07:29
And no, I don't think we can always infer the depth of people's values from how literate they are. I'm always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. In fact, in this case, I have more doubt than usual. :?)
Post by: hwood34 on Mon, 06 July 2015, 18:16:09
I did—and aside from the spelling error, punctuation errors, and the run-on sentence, it made complete sense to me.Sorry, your statement directly contradicting what I had just said made me think you just skipped over it. And thanks for pointing out my grammar; it's good to see you're above typical, petty internet bull****. It looks like the first sentence was a run on, I don't really see where I made any other egregious grammatical errors.
And no, I don't think we can always infer the depth of people's values from how literate they are. I'm always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. In fact, in this case, I have more doubt than usual. :?)
Post by: ander on Mon, 06 July 2015, 18:25:50
Technically, you combined three sentences ("Oh yea, good that's what you took from my statement, that's exactly what I said"). That's not important, though... It'd just been a while since I'd seen anyone defend slavery, and I was grasping for some sort of explanation. The writing style seemed an immediate possibility.
Post by: hwood34 on Mon, 06 July 2015, 19:04:27
I was wrong about the spelling error. I'm just not used to seeing people spell "yeah" without the H. Nowadays it's usually reserved for things like Shakespeare and records of oral voting.Again, where the **** do you see me defending slavery? I'm starting to question your mental capacity since you seem incapable of grasping simple concepts.
Technically, you combined three sentences ("Oh yea, good that's what you took from my statement, that's exactly what I said"). That's not important, though... It'd just been a while since I'd seen anyone defend slavery, and I was grasping for some sort of explanation. The writing style seemed an immediate possibility.
Post by: demik on Mon, 06 July 2015, 19:09:53
**** those sister ****ing confederate flag waving southerners tho.
Post by: hwood34 on Mon, 06 July 2015, 19:12:34
I was wondering why I had ander on my ignore list. Now I remember.
**** those sister ****ing confederate flag waving southerners tho.
Yeah it seems like a bunch of people I don't really see much are coming out of the woodwork being idiots.
Post by: demik on Mon, 06 July 2015, 19:15:42
Post by: BlueNalgene on Mon, 06 July 2015, 19:20:11
Post by: iri on Tue, 07 July 2015, 05:38:25