The Confederate Flag: A Disturbing Trend?

reply to post by TravisT

Quite possibly the most racist statement I have seen to date:

A white "redneck" calling someone a racist

The very idea that you cannot see your own prejudices is evidence against you. Tell me, is racism only possible in a white-on-black scenario?

There are two possible answers to that question: if you say "yes", then you have just stated that the term itself denotes the user as having an inherent prejudice against another because of the color of their skin.

If you say "no", then you have to admit the possibility of other forms of racism... including racism against a person because of where they are from... I believe that is called "origin" on that little non-discrimination statement we see so often?

Yes, you are a racist. You prejudge me based on the color of my skin and where I live. You interpret my culture based not on the culture itself, but on your personal opinion of what it means. And then you try to twist my words around to show me as somehow less than you.

Proof: Many of my friends who happen to be black have pictures of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. hanging inside their house. I have also seen the same thing on TV shows where black celebrities are being interviewed. In short, it is a typically 'black' occurrence to display a picture of Dr. King, just as it is a typically 'southern' occurrence to display the Confederate Flag.

Now, I know that Dr. King stood for and fought for (and even died for) equality between all. But suppose for a moment that I were raised in an area where all I knew of Dr. King, all that I had ever been told about Dr. King, was that he was a 'black supremacist' (and yes, there are still pockets, thankfully diminishing at a fast rate, where that is taught). Now I see pictures of Dr. King elevated in the homes of these people and I scream that they are uncivilized and ignorant because they honor the memory of a 'black supremacist'.

In that situation, would I be viewed as racist?

Again, there are two possible answers: it you say "yes", then I submit to you that you do the exact same thing to me. Regardless of skin color, regardless of excuses, you harbor the same ignorant thoughts and have the exact same reaction to my flag that I had in that example to the photo. Hence, you are acting in a racist manner.

If you say "no"... well, I would have to call you a liar.

Now I really don't expect you to get this, any more than I would expect the child of a skinhead to understand that Dr. King was a man of peace. Some things are simply beyond some people's comprehension. But perhaps another reader of these posts will see my points and understand them.

And that defines the difference between us. Your purpose here is to denigrate, scorn, ridicule... mine is to explain, teach, and hopefully bring us all closer to Dr. King's dream.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TreesusChrist

Originally posted by MentalGiant

2/3 of the blacks in the world do not know a single thing about the confederate flag, 2/3 of blacks in the workld do not speak English, 2/3 blacks in the world dont care about our American bull#, so your attempt to be a drama queen has failed.

Your exaggerrations are silly, your over the top statement s loaded with deceit, and stinks of ignorance and a dramatic flair to present your argument regardless of facts or reality......

What else should someone expect here on this thread? Nevermind....carry, on....Ill leave instead....

Almost every black person in America would see that flag as a symbol of oppression and hate. There, does that make you feel better?

Its not about me feeling better....its about you not being a child, exaggerating, crying wolf...etc....mmmkay..?

Originally posted by TravisT
All you're doing, is perpetuating racism, by flying your flag high, whether you like it or not.

No one is perpetuating racism by flying a confederate flag, to even say they are is a racist comment. He who brings the race card is the racist, not the flag!

Originally posted by WarminIndy
If I had said Indian, there would have been people commenting on that as well telling me it is wrong to say Indian. And I did mention that I was part Shawnee and the Native American stereotyping was what I was referring to.

I guess I could have said Indigenous.

edit on 9/18/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

As being part Native AMERICAN! my self I Use the term to defer from a Person from INDIA

Some prefer INDIAN some NOT ! I use if for Separation from the OLD Wold and New World

I Do at Least Prefer being called Iroquois or Mohawk or People of the First Nation

Before Black Africans becoming Slaves Native American were the First Slaves until the Brits Abolished it

Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865
www.slaveryinamerica.org...


But here is a Twist I Guess according to this this website Artical There were also American Slaves that they were East Asian Indians ( INDIA ) as Well..


Indian Slaves in Colonial America
Francis C.Assisi • Published on May 16, 2007
www.indiacurrents.com...


Did Blacks tremble at the site of a Confederate Flag back in the 1930s ? when the KKK was at its Peaky Prime !

Of Course I would assume ... but Now its Mixed The Confederate Flag became a Symbol of hate fir Some

just as another flag was at the Same Time Period across the Ocean in a Country Called Germany

a Religious Group Trembled at the Site of it ! from 1933 to 1945 The Flag is Banned in the Country ! yet it Once was a National Symbol ..

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by TravisT

Quite possibly the most racist statement I have seen to date:

A white "redneck" calling someone a racist

The very idea that you cannot see your own prejudices is evidence against you. Tell me, is racism only possible in a white-on-black scenario?

Actually, the reason why I quoted "redneck", is because, ohhhhh, I dunno, your screen name, perhaps? If you take that as being racist, but can't see how your flag is viewed as racist, is beyond me. But please, go on.....

There are two possible answers to that question: if you say "yes", then you have just stated that the term itself denotes the user as having an inherent prejudice against another because of the color of their skin.

If you say "no", then you have to admit the possibility of other forms of racism... including racism against a person because of where they are from... I believe that is called "origin" on that little non-discrimination statement we see so often?

So let me get this straight: You have now played the "race card", and are trying to act all butt hurt about me calling you white, by saying how insulting it is for one white guy to call another white guy "white"? You view that as racist, but are still blind about your silly flag? You are fighting this so hard, that you can't even admit that your flag has racist connotations to it? Hey, I didn't make these rules, and I guess you didn't either, but I'll at least abide by them, instead of having nothing else to add, other than trying to throw the "race card" cause of your own ignorance of what your flag represents today.

Yes, you are a racist. You prejudge me based on the color of my skin and where I live. You interpret my culture based not on the culture itself, but on your personal opinion of what it means. And then you try to twist my words around to show me as somehow less than you.

Ohhh, I like this sentence right here. Besides your silly argument that I'm racist to white guys , you then you go off, and say how you're somehow "above" all cultures here. Here you are, and can't even admit that the flag has a racist connotation to it. To deny that, is the dumbest thing you can do now. You know it, because we are here having this discussion, to deny this, is just asinine, but seriously, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you still do. With hat said, knowing that your flag has racist connotations to it, and yet, you still drape it proudly, is the very fact that you don't care about any other culture but YOUR OWN. It doesn't matter that you don't view the flag as a racial symbol: I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT TO YOU MANY TIMES. The fact is, IT IS REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU VIEW IT. And if you go around, and drape it proudly, with no regard of other peoples views, is YOU not caring about other cultures/feelings.

Proof: Many of my friends who happen to be black have pictures of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. hanging inside their house. I have also seen the same thing on TV shows where black celebrities are being interviewed. In short, it is a typically 'black' occurrence to display a picture of Dr. King, just as it is a typically 'southern' occurrence to display the Confederate Flag.

Now, I know that Dr. King stood for and fought for (and even died for) equality between all. But suppose for a moment that I were raised in an area where all I knew of Dr. King, all that I had ever been told about Dr. King, was that he was a 'black supremacist' (and yes, there are still pockets, thankfully diminishing at a fast rate, where that is taught). Now I see pictures of Dr. King elevated in the homes of these people and I scream that they are uncivilized and ignorant because they honor the memory of a 'black supremacist'.

In that situation, would I be viewed as racist?

What a silly comparison. This is all hypothetical. I'm not speaking in hypotheticals, I'm speaking about reality here, sir! MLK ISN'T viewed as a racist symbol towards white people, your confederate flag IS viewed as racist symbol towards some black people, whether you like that or not. Get over yourself, and just admit it!

And that defines the difference between us. Your purpose here is to denigrate, scorn, ridicule... mine is to explain, teach, and hopefully bring us all closer to Dr. King's dream.

And now you're comparing yourself to MLK! Are you out of your mind!?!? You're sitting here, completely oblivious to the fact that your precious flag has racial connotations attached to it, and then you say you're trying to bring equality without bigotry and hate, yet, have no problem with displaying a symbol that many view as racist? Yes, 2+2=5 You're so far off the deep end here, it's astonishing.

I do love the fact that I haven't even called you racist in our little debate, just ignorant to the fact that you can't even see how your flag is viewed as one, and in by doing so, I'm called a racist. This is just laughable for what seems so obvious to me......

reply to post by TravisT

...and are trying to act all butt hurt...

Not hurt at all, my friend. Just stating facts.

I'm not sure how to reply to the rest of your post, as it simply makes no sense to me. Apparently I am either sleep-typing in messages I cannot see, or I have completely lost all grasp of the English language? Anyway, considering I have made my point a few dozen times and that point obviously eludes and upsets you, perhaps it would be better if I made this my last response to you in this thread.

Thank you for the debate, and be well.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Wolfenz

If I may...

While reading your post I remembered something I always thought was strange, and something you may be interested in. I have learned from others that indigenous peoples are discriminated against heavily in some areas. I personally found that fact amazing, since here it is a mark of honor to have native bloodlines in your family.

I am part Cherokee myself (notice the mouth; I am not trying to frown) with a drop or two of Creek. That heritage is something I have always been extremely proud of, although I am somewhat ashamed to say I never learned much about it.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Again - you are entitled to your own opinion - but not your own facts. It's our watered down educational system of today as well as an anti-intellectual, self-serving glossing over of the facts that allows the specious argument that "the civil war was not about slavery" to continue to exist. I would suggest reading Team of Rivals as a start

reply to post by ElGatoLoco0698


Sovereign in order so that could keep their lifestyle of owning slaves. Freedom from the Union so that they could maintain the economic advantage of slavery. Sorry but no matter how you want to spin this and rewrite history..its about one thing: slavery

Originally posted by WarminIndy

If I had said Indian, there would have been people commenting on that as well telling me it is wrong to say Indian. And I did mention that I was part Shawnee and the Native American stereotyping was what I was referring to.

I guess I could have said Indigenous.

Letting others define what YOU are is the first step in racism. They don't have that luxury, it's not their place.

You are what YOU call yourself, not what others want to call you.

I'm Shawnee as well, and I'm INDIAN (or "NDN" upon occasion when shorthand is called for), not "native American", "aboriginal", "indigenous", etc. Those terms apply, but NOT in the context in which racists want to apply them. I'm of the same mind as Graham Greene on the term "native American" - anyone born here, regardless of race, is a "native American". This is the country of their nativity - they are "natives", and skin tone doesn't enter that equation.

Because of the context in which the racist elements attempt to apply the other terms, I personally reject them out of hand. You mileage may vary - you are who YOU say you are, not whatever label THEY want you to be.

Honestly, I think the term "native American" is one invented by politically correct, left wing elements to categorize us and put us in a "racial box" of their choosing, and thinking they can make us like it. They can't. We don't belong in a box of THEIR choice.

We already know who and what we are, and most are pretty damned proud of it.

However, if you personally prefer that term, then that's the one you should use, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks - it's not OUR place to put YOU in a particular box, either, any more than it's the place of the politically correct categorizers.

Neither flag nor opinion of others matters - only YOU know what's in your own heart, and that's not affected by externals like flags and labels.

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by WarminIndy
If I had said Indian, there would have been people commenting on that as well telling me it is wrong to say Indian. And I did mention that I was part Shawnee and the Native American stereotyping was what I was referring to.

I guess I could have said Indigenous.

edit on 9/18/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

As being part Native AMERICAN! my self I Use the term to defer from a Person from INDIA

Some prefer INDIAN some NOT !

edit on Sun Sep 18 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: removed nested quotes

People from India call our Indians the Red Indians. And people usually do not know this but the first slaves in the New World were actually Irish. What the slave traders used was the term indentured servant but it was really slavery.

www.giftofireland.com...
www.scoilgaeilge.org...
www.africaresource.com...
republican-news.org...

Federick Douglass' own account of the Irish was In 1845, emancipated slave Frederick Douglass made a five-week lecture tour of Ireland. He gave a series of fiery anti-slavery lectures in Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Belfast, sometimes drawing parallels between Irish and American slave experiences and more often distinguishing between them as forms of oppression. His letter back home to the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison published in The Liberator reported:

"During my stay in Dublin, I took occasion to visit the huts of the poor in its vicinity and of all places to witness human misery, ignorance, degradation, filth and wretchedness, an Irish hut is pre-eminent.... I see much here to remind me of my former condition.... He who really and truly feels for the American slave cannot steel his heart to the woes of others."

irelandsown.net...

Slaves came from all races and most all races had slaves. We were taught it was only Africans who were slaves but history recounts it differently because history is written by the victors.

www.irelandsown.net...

www.revisionisthistory.org...

The part of me that is not Red Indian and Sephardic Jew is Irish.

i wasn't going to do this, but, on second thought.....the slave trade was dominated by jewish interests in those days...the owners of the ships that transported the rum to africa and brought back the african people were jewish, in fact, the captains of the ships were jewish too....

source

"Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. "This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the 'triangular trade' that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750's, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760's, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760's and early 1770's dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent." SOURCE: Jews and Judaism in the United States a Documentary History (New York: Behrman House, Inc., Pub, 1983), p. 14. Dr. Lee Raphael is the editor of American Jewish History, the journal of the American Jewish Historical Society at Brandeis University in Massachusetts.

in fact, the slave industry was so dominated by jewish merchants that and consumers that on jewish holidays, the auctions were closed for business.......if you want to learn more about it, you can visit the source site above or do your own googling.........

now how this came to do with a rebel flag i don't know, but i can tell you this, that war was being fought because we didn't want to join forces with england and their banks!!!!!.....we lost, look where we are with the banking industry!!!! how do you like them apples??????

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by WarminIndy

If I had said Indian, there would have been people commenting on that as well telling me it is wrong to say Indian. And I did mention that I was part Shawnee and the Native American stereotyping was what I was referring to.

I guess I could have said Indigenous.

Letting others define what YOU are is the first step in racism. They don't have that luxury, it's not their place.

You are what YOU call yourself, not what others want to call you.

I'm Shawnee as well, and I'm INDIAN (or "NDN" upon occasion when shorthand is called for), not "native American", "aboriginal", "indigenous", etc. Those terms apply, but NOT in the context in which racists want to apply them. I'm of the same mind as Graham Greene on the term "native American" - anyone born here, regardless of race, is a "native American". This is the country of their nativity - they are "natives", and skin tone doesn't enter that equation.

Because of the context in which the racist elements attempt to apply the other terms, I personally reject them out of hand. You mileage may vary - you are who YOU say you are, not whatever label THEY want you to be.

Honestly, I think the term "native American" is one invented by politically correct, left wing elements to categorize us and put us in a "racial box" of their choosing, and thinking they can make us like it. They can't. We don't belong in a box of THEIR choice.

We already know who and what we are, and most are pretty damned proud of it.

However, if you personally prefer that term, then that's the one you should use, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks - it's not OUR place to put YOU in a particular box, either, any more than it's the place of the politically correct categorizers.

Neither flag nor opinion of others matters - only YOU know what's in your own heart, and that's not affected by externals like flags and labels.

I love Graham Greene. And you are right about what people call us. I once worked with a lady who was always talking about her parents from Mexico and she spent childhood summers in Mexico. One day we were talking about ancestry and I mentioned she was Mexican, meaning her family came from the country of Mexico. She got so upset with me and cursed at me then told me she was Latina. I had not called her Hispanic.

It does become difficult sometimes when talking to people and sometimes we use certain phrases that other people don't understand because they don't use them. For instance, when I had moved to North Carolina from Ohio, where I grew up, I was working with some black girls who also came from a different state. I was told by the manager to go ask them a question and as any Ohioan does I started with "You guys..." Well these girls were so upset with me that they were angry and jumped on me by saying "We are not male". We say "you guys" to any collective group of people, whether it is female, male or both.

A lot of the problem is that it is hard to be correct when you don't know the correct thing to say.

Originally posted by mrsoul2009
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Again - you are entitled to your own opinion - but not your own facts. It's our watered down educational system of today as well as an anti-intellectual, self-serving glossing over of the facts that allows the specious argument that "the civil war was not about slavery" to continue to exist. I would suggest reading Team of Rivals as a start

I stated that slavery was a indeed a major issue for starting the Civil War.
The US educational system and PC revisionist historians are indoctrinating students to believe that is was the only reason.
What facts are you referring to me "making up"?
I've been studying the Civil War for 40+ years and I think I have a fairly good grasp on the subject.
Might I suggest reading Shelby Foote's Civil War, a narrative as a start.

Originally posted by patternfinder
i wasn't going to do this, but, on second thought.....the slave trade was dominated by jewish interests in those days...the owners of the ships that transported the rum to africa and brought back the african people were jewish, in fact, the captains of the ships were jewish too....

source

"Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. "This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the 'triangular trade' that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750's, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760's, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760's and early 1770's dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent." SOURCE: Jews and Judaism in the United States a Documentary History (New York: Behrman House, Inc., Pub, 1983), p. 14. Dr. Lee Raphael is the editor of American Jewish History, the journal of the American Jewish Historical Society at Brandeis University in Massachusetts.

in fact, the slave industry was so dominated by jewish merchants that and consumers that on jewish holidays, the auctions were closed for business.......if you want to learn more about it, you can visit the source site above or do your own googling.........

now how this came to do with a rebel flag i don't know, but i can tell you this, that war was being fought because we didn't want to join forces with england and their banks!!!!!.....we lost, look where we are with the banking industry!!!! how do you like them apples??????

I think that there were indeed some Jewish men who did this, but you can't say it was all Jewish people as though all Jewish people had a vested interest in slavery when during that time the Jewish people were facing pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Like I said in my post, all races were slaves and most races had slaves. I would be very careful to post things in such a manner to make it seem that there is a Jewish conspiracy, because there simply is not. Not all Jews are wealthy like the Rothschilds. Of the Jews that I know personally, and I should say people that are Jewish, they are not wealthy and live just like the rest of us do. The thing that I admire about those who are Jewish is this, even though they are not wealthy, they still desire for their children to be educated in such professions as doctors and lawyers and do what they can to support their children to get through college. Those Jewish people who came here just after the Holocaust were very poor and had the Jewish Immigration League to connect them with family here. My own Sephardic Jewish ancestors were not wealthy at all and never in my family have we ever talked about being part of a conspiracy to control the world.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by mrsoul2009
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Again - you are entitled to your own opinion - but not your own facts. It's our watered down educational system of today as well as an anti-intellectual, self-serving glossing over of the facts that allows the specious argument that "the civil war was not about slavery" to continue to exist. I would suggest reading Team of Rivals as a start

I stated that slavery was a indeed a major issue for starting the Civil War.
The US educational system and PC revisionist historians are indoctrinating students to believe that is was the only reason.
What facts are you referring to me "making up"?
I've been studying the Civil War for 40+ years and I think I have a fairly good grasp on the subject.
Might I suggest reading Shelby Foote's Civil War, a narrative as a start.

Shelby Foote was also in Ken Burns' Civil War documentary. He does know a lot and is an excellent source.

reply to post by patternfinder


You make a great point about the banks.
The conspiracy minded might say that European banking interests worked very hard to put the North and South at odds against each other.
The British wanted to see America drained of it wealth and manhood which is why they initially supported the South by selling them arms and making warships for the Confederates.
The Confederate cotton embargo angered English textile interests and when Lincoln decided to Emancipate the slaves popular opinion changed in favor of the North.
At the end of the war America owed European banks an immense amount of money.
Banks were and are still, the major profiteers from war.
150 years later and we're just now waking up to this fact.

Originally posted by mrsoul2009
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Again - you are entitled to your own opinion - but not your own facts. It's our watered down educational system of today as well as an anti-intellectual, self-serving glossing over of the facts that allows the specious argument that "the civil war was not about slavery" to continue to exist. I would suggest reading Team of Rivals as a start

I would suggest reading American history as a start. "The Civil War was not about slavery" doesn't "continue to exist" as a specious argument. Research by people searching for real answers have finally been able to shine this light of truth on the darkness of the progressive left's stranglehold on the lie that the War was "all about slavery" that's been perpetuated for 100 years.

Progressives have perpetuated this lie because they can't stand the fact that kollectivism doesn't work, mainly because humans aren't insects. America was designed as a confederation of states with a limited central governing body, but progressives just can't deal with the power being with the people. Government is mother, government is father.

/TOA

I think most are missing the genius behind freeing slaves due to race........now they make a wage....now they pay taxes just like everybody else. Now they pay for health care....just like everybody else.....you get the idea.

Truth of the matter is...we are all slaves.....to money and greed.

The civil war was no more (really) about slavery as it was about taxation and a way to create more revenue. SO much so that the King of England finaced both sides during the war. Didn't matter who won......they both had to pay em back. Did the same thing in the revolutionary war.

Starting to see the bigger picture? Racism is a lark and is often confused with slavery. We're slaves to money no matter the race....hence....no racism....yet we're still slaves.

Slavery is nothing personal, it was a business that produced results created by evil men. Race was just a by product of a stranger in a strange land who didn't vibe with the lingo.

Make sense? I will also state that Lincoln was not a team player with corporate interest, hence why he was put down...same thing happened to Kennedy. This isn't a country, it's a corporation.

Hence the slavery we are all binded to. After all this country was founded so that people could make money. Don't believe me? Do some digging.

Originally posted by BooKrackers
I think most are missing the genius behind freeing slaves due to race........now they make a wage....now they pay taxes just like everybody else. Now they pay for health care....just like everybody else.....you get the idea.

Truth of the matter is...we are all slaves.....to money and greed.

The civil war was no more (really) about slavery as it was about taxation and a way to create more revenue. SO much so that the King of England finaced both sides during the war. Didn't matter who won......they both had to pay em back. Did the same thing in the revolutionary war.

Starting to see the bigger picture? Racism is a lark and is often confused with slavery. We're slaves to money no matter the race....hence....no racism....yet we're still slaves.

Slavery is nothing personal, it was a business that produced results created by evil men. Race was just a by product of a stranger in a strange land who didn't vibe with the lingo.

Make sense? I will also state that Lincoln was not a team player with corporate interest, hence why he was put down...same thing happened to Kennedy. This isn't a country, it's a corporation.

Hence the slavery we are all binded to. After all this country was founded so that people could make money. Don't believe me? Do some digging.

Are you advocating that we all quit work and do nothing? If we all did nothing then how would we live? Are you advocating that we all live off the government? Maybe we should go back to the barter system....no wait, we already do because we barter money for items. Could you imagine what this country would be like if none of us went to work? Those who have bananas can only take so many chickens.