It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Banning the US flag as well.

page: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheIceQueen

This is the type of thing that is really mind blowing to me. How can you and so many people think that the south (and it's flag) stood for slavery, and only that?


Because I don't have a dog in this fight. I am unbiased and emotionally detached.

The Civil War was #1 about slavery. All those who keep trying to drip honey on it need to get real.

The flag was political, not some beautiful garden.




It doesn't matter what you think the Civil War was #1 about. There are people much more educated about that historical time than you or me that will disagree with it being the #1 issue.

That being said, the flag represents a spirit that has absolutely nothing to do with racism. Racists embraced it, but the spirit went deeper and had a much stronger meaning than racial prejudice.

"They" want to weaken that spirit. When you denigrate the symbol of that spirit, you take power away. It may start with a flag, but may end with something else entirely.




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I really wish you would go and study up on it, because you sound silly.

Yes, slavery was a PART of what the Civil War was about.

But it was not the only thing by far. They had DEEP cultural and economic differences, as well as differences in how the Federal Government should impose it's will on the states, they feared we'd have EXACTLY what we have now, an over reaching Federal Government. Plus the election of Lincoln angered the South as he was viewed as pro North, and pro Federal government.

Southerners viewed the North as uppity and snooty, while the Northerners viewed the south as little better than "savages". And those viewpoints went all the way to congress.

It's not as black and white (no pun intended) as you want to believe.


(post by TheIceQueen removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982
a reply to: Annee

I really wish you would go and study up on it, because you sound silly.

Yes, slavery was a PART of what the Civil War was about.

But it was not the only thing by far. They had DEEP cultural and economic differences, as well as differences in how the Federal Government should impose it's will on the states, they feared we'd have EXACTLY what we have now, an over reaching Federal Government. Plus the election of Lincoln angered the South as he was viewed as pro North, and pro Federal government.

Southerners viewed the North as uppity and snooty, while the Northerners viewed the south as little better than "savages". And those viewpoints went all the way to congress.

It's not as black and white (no pun intended) as you want to believe.


I have to disagree with you there.. The southerners were far from savages. Gentry and royal descendants (those of the upper class) would migrate to the south, first heading to the Virginia colony. You see, the south and north already had a feud so to say, because to generalize- they already had 'beef' back in England/Scotland, as their ancestors had their own civil war against one another, the northerners largely came from the puritan descendants and the southerners from the upper class/gentry.

If anything, speaking from their ancestor's past (and obviously themselves) they were the puritanical, lowly savages.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheIceQueen

This is the type of thing that is really mind blowing to me. How can you and so many people think that the south (and it's flag) stood for slavery, and only that?


Because I don't have a dog in this fight. I am unbiased and emotionally detached.

The Civil War was #1 about slavery. All those who keep trying to drip honey on it need to get real.

The flag was political, not some beautiful garden.




It doesn't matter what you think the Civil War was #1 about. There are people much more educated about that historical time than you or me that will disagree with it being the #1 issue.



And you think I don't do my research.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: nenothtu

Do you have links, documentation, that your version of history is accurate?


Sure do. Which point are you getting hung up on? I mean, are you denying that there was a secession, that the US invaded the Confederacy, that the US won, that they re-annexed the south, or which point?



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

The Civil War was about economics. Why was it about economics? Because the plantations could not be run without slave labor.



Well, we half agree - it most certainly WAS about economics. If all those fine young men in blue were just down here to free slaves, maybe you can tell me what became of the slaves they freed while they were here freeing them? For bonus points, maybe you can tell me why they didn't get around to freeing them until AFTER the south seceded.

Maybe, while you're at it, you can explain why the Emancipation Proclamation freed not one single slave in the North (Maryland and Kentucky, for examples) - and yes, they were there... maybe you can further explain why slaves in Tennessee, for example, were not "freed" by it, even though Tennessee had seceded as well. I mean, it was all about the slavery, and freeing slaves, right?




Anyway you twist it, it's still about slavery. About owning another human being. About forcing that human being to work for your own profit.

Slave laborers in Bangladesh probably have more rights.

That is what the Confederation is about. That is what the flag represents.



You know, I reckon I'll have to explain to you like I've had to explain to a few others that it's not MY responsibility to control what YOU want to read into it. I kind of miss the good old days - you know, the days when a person owning or creating a thing got to decide what it meant to them, rather than having some outsider decide FOR them, and then proceed to tell them "what it really means".




You can spout all you want about Seceding, about state rights, about not being controlled, etc etc ----- does not change the real bottom line.

There is no comparison between the U.S. flag and the Confederate flag.




I guess that all depends on the color of the eyes you're looking through. I can introduce you to some red and brown folks who would beg to differ. The only difference they see between the two is that the US flag, and the oppression it represents, is still in full force.



edit on 2015/6/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Not to mention nearly 400 years of slavery, the most insidious of acts perpetrated under the banner of so-called freedom.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: yuppa

We might as well start banning all flags and corporate insignias. Good point.

I am definitely not for this "ban the confederate flag" censorship nonsense and I'm a liberal. I think that people should openly be able to express whatever views they may have, and I also think that the confederate flag stands for more than just slavery.


I just had to star your post. please refrain from ever forcing me to do that again. I'm sitting here in mortal terror that lightning may strike me any second.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

The flag was political, not some beautiful garden.



Aren't all national flags political? Isn't that sort of their purpose?



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982

Southerners viewed the North as uppity and snooty, while the Northerners viewed the south as little better than "savages". And those viewpoints went all the way to congress.



Some things never change, eh? I wonder if there is a flag we can get rid of for THAT?



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Interesting debate. I'm sure the OP would be interested to know I just saw his views are shared by Al Sharpton(I'm not going to link to Infowars here..I know that's sort of taboo around these parts..but it's there on the front page right now.)
I'm not sure what that means when one thinks like Al Sharpton, but at any rate it's certainly being debated here and elsewhere..so there's that I suppose.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Banning the US flag as well.




posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Annee

The flag was political, not some beautiful garden.



Aren't all national flags political? Isn't that sort of their purpose?




I understand the difference between cultural heritage and politics.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You think voting matters?

Cute...



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
a reply to: Annee

You think voting matters?

Cute...


I guess doing nothing as an excuse is better.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

...
I don't like it any more than you do, which is why I prefer total anarchy.


Anarchy is just a transitional state between a form of democracy or autocracy. It doesn't last.



At least the good guys still have a chance that way. But the way things are going now, with all of our little imaginary lines on maps being redrawn after killing a whole bunch of people and then doing it over again... and over again... and over again...

"Good" guys is a relative term, and a value statement. Anarchy kills many many more than any democracy or autocracy ever did. It is a state of transition, termoil, and uncertainty. Do you have children??



Does the NWO really mean more death and destruction than we already have (we're just a little insulated from it in the West)? For another thread perhaps, but it's something to think about. I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as we sometimes make it out to be.


All it means is a further concentration of power to the hands of a few... Pretty much a form of autocracy. And, yes, it's pretty much "cut and dry".
edit on 25-6-2015 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2015 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   


The Scotch-Irish and Germans who actually WENT into the "unknown" might take exception to that characterization of Britishcoast-huggers.




The derp is strong in you.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   


The Civil War was about economics. Why was it about economics? Because the plantations could not be run without slave labor.

Anyway you twist it, it's still about slavery. About owning another human being. About forcing that human being to work for your own profit.

Slave laborers in Bangladesh probably have more rights.

That is what the Confederation is about. That is what the flag represents.

You can spout all you want about Seceding, about state rights, about not being controlled, etc etc ----- does not change the real bottom line.

There is no comparison between the U.S. flag and the Confederate flag.




Goodness gracious, I'm English and I seem to know more about this than you....

"President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war."

So the civil war fermented because they wanted to ban slaves?? Hmm??



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flux8

Anarchy is just a transitional state between a form of democracy or autocracy. It doesn't last.

Shame.

Although it should be noted that the nation-state concept is a relatively recent introduction into the social organization of human beings. The anarchic hunter-gatherer band societies (anarchy does not mean lack of organization) were around for tens of thousands of years before we invented anything resembling a "state".

So. It did last for a very long time. And I don't subscribe to the myth that the life of "primitive" man was "nasty, short and brutish".


Anarchy kills many many more than any democracy or autocracy ever did.

Uhm. When?

Looking back at the multitude of atrocities the human race has committed against itself, were they committed by governments or anarchists?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join