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.

 

The Confederate Flag: A Disturbing Trend?

page: 21
17
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tankerpilot
 



Written into the Confederate States Constitution.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.



As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Indeed, CSA constitution seems to barely stop short of making owning slaves mandatory. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of future anti-slave law or policy will be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" until the cows come home, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA


Continuing the US government's prohibition of importation of slaves after the year 1808, which is in the Articles of the confederate constitution unlike the U.S. Constitution, the confederate constitution does make explicit the legal protection of owning slaves.

WIKI


So why is it written into their Constitution,their "living" document? Because it DID matter,and always mattered. Enough to be written into it.A document that COULDNT be changed. A document those states adhered to,and ratified March 11, 1861
edit on 22-9-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I just want to know at what point did symbols, words and ideas become weaponized so that someone is actually being "hurt" by them?
Kids used to tease me in school for being the shortest one there and do you know what my mother told me?
"sticks and stones may"....you know the rest.

Another question: who now gets to decide which are "too offensive" for public display or usage?
The ministry of truth perhaps?
So I guess it'll be fine to start burning crosses, just because it was a Scottish tradition of rebellion?

The Fiery cross is the English language term for a piece of wood, such as a baton, that North Europeans, e.g. Scotsmen and Scandinavians, used to send to rally people for things (assemblies) for defence or rebellion


Weird, both are about rallying people into rebellion, so going by your guys standards, burning crosses should be just fine. It's origins weren't racist before the KKK took it, so if someone here in America wants to display burning crosses, it's their right to show their Scottish heritage of rebellion. I'm sure a lot of their forefathers died because they tried to defend or rally an army into rebellion with a burning cross.

edit on 22-9-2011 by TravisT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


Slavery was in common practice across the nation, not just in the South.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by MyMindIsMyOwn
reply to post by Butterbone
 


So let me get this right here... you are equating southern states residents, past and present, with terrorists? Please tell me that is not what I just read. Are you really saying that because they stood up for their rights as states, as guaranteed by the very Constitution of this country, they are terrorists bent on the bloodbaths of innocents? Following that 'fuzzy' logic those who today display proudly the "Don't Tread On Me" flag, of which I am one, would be terrorists as well no matter your geographical locale. Personally I would rather be counted as one of the people who have come to recognize the fact that 'we the people' are still being raked over the coals by our government and am proud to be one who is standing up and saying "enough is enough" which is what the southern states of the time of the Civil War were doing.

I have come to an assumption from your rhetoric that you assume that Kentucky (the location listed under your avatar pic) was a non slave state and was a proud member of the Union cause... which, since you lack historical understanding, you assume was all about the abolition of slavery. Have you done any research into your own home state and their view on the whole thing? No?? Well here, let me provide to you some information on that topic taken directly from the Kentucky Educational Television website. Link to info below is: Kentucky Educational Television


Kentucky was one of the "border states" in the Civil War, both geographically and politically. It was situated on the dividing line between the northern and southern regions of the United States. And it was one of only a few slave states that opted to stay in the Union.
Bold emphasis mine.


Politically, Kentucky was proud of its role in preserving the Union. Through the work of the Great Compromiser, Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, conflict was prevented for more than 30 years, even though bitter feelings between the Northern and Southern states over tariffs, states' rights, and the slavery issue threatened to rip the country apart.
Bold emphasis again mine.

It states that Ky was proud of it's role in preserving the union..not the north but the entire union of states, both southern and northern. Why is that? Because it needed/wanted to preserve its status quo in order to keep its thriving economy as a state alive which is why it's legislature voted to remain neutral in the conflict. In that vote of neutrality it's absorbtion into the war on the side of the Union was assumed. This was not done over a moral issue like slavery but for pure profit. The bold text will show you that even now it is recognized that slavery was not the ONLY issue in the War between the States.


Kentucky was a source of slaves for the cotton plantations in the lower South, and the slave trade was a very profitable business for many Kentuckians. However, most Kentuckians did not own slaves.
Bold again my emphasis.

Most residents of the south did not own slaves either, it was again, like Kentucky, where only the wealthy land owners owned slaves. Most residents were too poor.


When President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, all slaves in the Confederacy were legally set free. Because Kentucky remained in the Union, slaves in this state were not free.



The Civil War ended in 1865, and Kentucky slaves were legally freed when the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified soon afterward. But Confederate sentiment was still high in Kentucky after the war. The Kentucky General Assembly failed to ratify either the 13th Amendment; the 14th, which gave equal protection under the law to blacks; or the 15th, which gave African Americans the right to vote.
Bold emphasis mine..again.

So, as we see in the examples above, when merged with your own opinion equating slavery with terrorists of the worst sort, Kentucky, your current location, would indeed seem to be run by terrorist cells. I would move if I were you. I would go west... I hear they are giving away 40 acres and a mule.....


Your rambling is completely unfounded. No where have I stated what I believe caused the civil war. What started the war is completely irrelevant to the topic of the discussion in my opinion. No post that I have made in this thread has mentioned slavery.

What I have stated is that the people who flew the confederate flag flew it because they did not want to be Americans. They killed Americans and so should be represented in history as terrorists.

Someone who chooses to stamp a terrorist symbol all over their property and person, should be considered terrorist sympathizers or terrorists in their own right.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
@ nenothu

1. Slaves suffered from a mental disorder due to the ridicolous hypocracy of their lives. Those on this site familiar with MK Ultra programming can closely relate it to that. Do to the rather effective "slave breaking" mental and physical techniques , the slave master WOULD infact put a gun in the hands of a slave because they knew that their programming was likely unbreakable. Slaves hunted, cooked, and "mamies" even fed the master children her own breastmilk. As far as confederate black soldiers go ; black people have fought in every american war (while slaves and without civil rights) . We are a patriotic (im sure the programming helped) bunch

2. I said 95% of African Americans. I didn't say a Jamaican that lives in New York. Nor did I say a Nigerian thats studying in Kansas. Barack Obama's blackness is not an issue relevant to the post. If you believe it is, just count him with the 5 % who is not. I'm also sure that you would be the person who would say "Obama is half white! " If one of my points was that he was black, so ...

3. Wether the war was truly about slavery or not , in the end, holds no weight to the representation of the flag today. The institution of American Slavery was one in which not only were the slaves taken to a different land (not by their own will - just in case someone wants to throw in the "african's sold them!") they were proactively forced to forget their true names, orginial tongue, and home land. The reason Malcom X had an "X" was because it is an unknown factor! We are all X's . You brought up the indians, do they not know what tribe they are at least? Do they not have translated names like "kicking bird" ? Apples and oranges my love. The fact that some people still want to hold on to a piece of such an evil history (and to black people - the South is actually a rather frightning memory complex) , while throwing it in the faces of the people they affronted, speaks to serious sadistic complex. We referenced the swatiska in the discussion: true it is "just a symbol" but if someone wears a swatiska purposely in and around Jewish Brooklyn - what point are they trying to make other than being evil?

And to Mr.Redneck. I'm familiar with your kind. Unfortunately you saying that you had to train youself from saying "'n-word'" so frequently as thats what you were raised on (so sometimes does it just slip out?) - really disqualifies you from speaking on African American History , as it implicates that your sources and research are most likely overwhelmingly bias.... However, the fact that you are a white southern man who supports the rebel flag but still thinks of black people (in your mind) as 'n-word's , I guess proves my point......



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MyMindIsMyOwn
reply to post by Butterbone
 

I have come to an assumption from your rhetoric that you assume that Kentucky (the location listed under your avatar pic) was a non slave state and was a proud member of the Union cause...


And there is the failure in your response. Based on that sentence I can say with confidence, that you are just making things up. Not your sourced materials, because those are obviously cut and paste. But the whole reason for your post, you made up yourself.

"I have come to an assumption". That translates roughly to "Abara Cadabara, I have an argument".



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Butterbone

What I have stated is that the people who flew the confederate flag flew it because they did not want to be Americans. They killed Americans and so should be represented in history as terrorists.

Someone who chooses to stamp a terrorist symbol all over their property and person, should be considered terrorist sympathizers or terrorists in their own right.


Questions. All this post inspires is more questions.

"Terrorists"?

Really?

Is your world really so black and white?

Folks are either with "you" or they are with "the terrorists"?

Is that YOU, George?

What other "terrorist" organization has a duly constituted government, and a nation of their own top go with it?

Do you even know what a "terrorist" is?

How old are you? Old enough to recall a time when "terrorists" didn't rule the Earth, and were a nuisance issue?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by femalepharoe

1. Slaves suffered from a mental disorder due to the ridicolous hypocracy of their lives. Those on this site familiar with MK Ultra programming can closely relate it to that. Do to the rather effective "slave breaking" mental and physical techniques , the slave master WOULD infact put a gun in the hands of a slave because they knew that their programming was likely unbreakable. Slaves hunted, cooked, and "mamies" even fed the master children her own breastmilk. As far as confederate black soldiers go ; black people have fought in every american war (while slaves and without civil rights) . We are a patriotic (im sure the programming helped) bunch


OF COURSE they armed their slaves and then shoved them around and ordered them to go die in a war!
It's always a good idea to arm folks one beats and mistreats! I'm shocked, really that more plantation owners didn't die of lead poisoning from that common practice. This is the first time I've heard of the Confederate (did they even HAVE a CIA?) development of the original MKUltra Program. That's either a VERY novel theory, or a stretch of imagination to the breaking point. I've heard a lot of novel theories in my day, but having the CIA active during the Civil War, on the side of the Confederacy to boot, is a brand new one for me.

So where was their MKUltra programming when the Underground Railroad was collecting clients? How did that work? Programming break down under ONLY those circumstances?



2. I said 95% of African Americans. I didn't say a Jamaican that lives in New York. Nor did I say a Nigerian thats studying in Kansas.


No, you didn't. I'll quote it again:



EVERY African American has a direct link to a slave. Damn.


I rest my case.



Barack Obama's blackness is not an issue relevant to the post. If you believe it is, just count him with the 5 % who is not.


It most certainly is relevant, unless you are one of those who believe he's not American, but Kenyan instead. After all you did say "EVERY African-American", not "African-Kenyans".



I'm also sure that you would be the person who would say "Obama is half white! " If one of my points was that he was black, so ...


Wrong. I don't believe anyone is "half" anything. They are as they identify themselves. "Degrees of bloodedness" is a white thing. I don't subscribe to it.



3. Wether the war was truly about slavery or not , in the end, holds no weight to the representation of the flag today.


Nope, and neither do the pronouncements of those who would seek to redefine it by applying their own definitions to it, and disallowing those who hold it to say what it means to them. See, outsiders don't get to define what something of your own means to YOU. This is one of the problems with the world today - folks either want to claim what belongs to others for their own, or simply deny it to the others, and they often do that by redefining it.



The institution of American Slavery was one in which not only were the slaves taken to a different land (not by their own will - just in case someone wants to throw in the "african's sold them!")


In some cases, other Africans sold them, but in most it was Arabs. I can't see how it matters either way unless they sold their own selves, individually. If someone else is enslaving and selling you, does it really matter WHO is doing it?



they were proactively forced to forget their true names, orginial tongue, and home land.,,, You brought up the indians, do they not know what tribe they are at least? Do they not have translated names like "kicking bird" ?


Tell me all about it. last time I checked, there were only 287 people left who could speak my tribe's language due to government eradication efforts. That's starting to change now - they have classes on the res. "Translated names" are not names at all. They are what you would call "slave names". That's why my ATS handle isn't in English.

Black folks don't have a monopoly.

Some Indian tribes were erased entirely from the planet, and are no more. Others have no idea what tribe they "were", and either cast about for a tribe, or are only now beginning to rediscover their tribal affiliation. The Lumbees in NC come to mind. There was no "Lumbee" tribe, but it has recently been speculated that they are the remains of the Catawbas which were thought to be an extinct tribe. They have state recognition now as "Lumbees", but have no federal recognition.



Apples and oranges my love. The fact that some people still want to hold on to a piece of such an evil history (and to black people - the South is actually a rather frightning memory complex) , while throwing it in the faces of the people they affronted, speaks to serious sadistic complex.


Well, since you put it THAT way, of course we should just erase Southerners culture and leave them adrift! Having been treated to that sort of thing first hand, we really ought to be more than eager to visit it on others, eh? That'll make everything alright then! Let's do it today, starting with redefining FOR THEM what their own symbology means.



We referenced the swatiska in the discussion: true it is "just a symbol" but if someone wears a swatiska purposely in and around Jewish Brooklyn - what point are they trying to make other than being evil?


I guess that depends on just WHICH swastika they wear, and, if a German Nazi swastika, whether or not they are German, or of German WWII ancestry. We can't presume what's in their mind until THEY say what's in their mind.



edit on 2011/9/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Butterbone
 


The South hardly had "all the advantages and still lost". What the South had was A) they were on the defensive and B) they had a better cadre of officers. Those were the only advantages they had.
The North had 10X the manufacturing ability, 4X the population (6X if you exclude blacks in the South), the North had many, many more ships as well as better roads and around 4X the mileage of railways.
The South lost only because they ran out of men, bullets and food.
So go ahead and ridicule my ancestors (and maybe some of your own) for their dedication to defending their homes. If you had any inkling whatsoever of how badly they suffered you wouldn't trivialize it so.

The vast majority of White Northern soldiers were fighting for one reason - to restore the Union, not to free the slaves. Lincoln was terrified that soldiers would go AWOL in droves before he announced the Emancipation proclamation, and for good reason.

Southerners were the first Americans of European descent,
Jamestown was founded in 1607 and Plymouth colony came 13 years later.

About labeling Southerners who display the flag as terrorists:

The North invaded the South, not the other way around.
Ft. Sumter was simply the excuse needed to start the war.
Federal property in any of the Southern states rightfully belonged to that state.
By refusing to abandon the fort the Lincoln purposely instigated the conditions for war.

If flying any flag is an act of terrorism in your book then you follow the same twisted logic as Homeland Security where Gadsden flags and Ron Paul bumper stickers are also signs of possible terrorists.

This is how freedom of speech and expression will disappear, one issue at a time by the victim mentality that forgets all those who have died to defend the very rights you are willing to give away to save someone's possible feelings.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Well said! I can only think of one more advantage the South had than the ones you listed - they had more, and more recent combat veterans than the North did, because they bore the brunt of the fighting and dying for the US in the Mexican American War. That's also why they had a higher caliber of officers.

I think he was relying heavily on an "agricultural advantage" in his post, but of what use is your agriculture when your fields are smoking ruins at the hands of an invading enemy? Hardly what I would class as an "advantage", but certainly a reason to defend those fields!

Burn a farmer's fields, and he's not left with much to occupy his time other than shoot at you!





edit on 2011/9/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Response:

So where was their MKUltra when the Underground Railroad was collecting clients? How did that work? Programming break down under ONLY those circumstances?

1. Well since your good at quoting, you will note that I wrote “Those on this site familiar with MK Ultra programming can closely relate it to that.” Meaning you may use your knowledge of the systematic torture and mind breaking slavery to help you understand why owners of slaves were not worried about their own safety as the slave was so well trained as to not harm his slave family.


2. Good catch. I mis…typed? Him being African-American is an argument that you , as you say , are unable to pronounce. See, [you] as an outsider [to the AA community] don't get to define what something of [our] own means to [US].

For example:

Some black scholars have argued that the term "African-American" should refer strictly to the descendents of West or Central African slaves and free people of color who survived the slavery-era, and not the sons and daughters of black immigrants who lack that ancestry Debra J. Dickerson (22 January 2007). Colorblind - Barack Obama would be the great black hope in the next presidential race -- if he were actually black


My reference to African people living in America, was to emphasize that that doesn’t make them African American. The president , certainly is black, but whether he is African-American or not is not an issue that YOU have the knowledge base or reference to define. Using your own definition of course.


3.

Going back to you “Outsiders don’t get to define” statement, I think is an excellent indicator of how African Americans have repeatedly been undermined and ignored through history. If my entire (traceable) family is from the south, tilled the land, cooked for and maintained the great southern manors, and built the cobble stone streets by hand – Is it not MY south as well???? Of course is it, but due to guilt and denial , you would have me believe that black people are an “outsider” to the South and thus have no say , or are over sensitive, in their association to it.


The institution of American Slavery was one in which not only were the slaves taken to a different land (not by their own will - just in case someone wants to throw in the "african's sold them!")


In some cases, other Africans sold them, but in most it was Arabs. I can't see how it matters either way unless they sold their own selves, individually. If someone else is enslaving and selling you, does it really matter WHO is doing it?

4. YES, that was MY point, wasn’t it?? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?



5. On tribal languages. Black people do not have a monopoly but you did just prove my point that you are familiar with your language and name. And honestly I don’t know why you are coming at me, do you support southern racist rednecks? This is a yes or no question.




6.
“Well, since you put it THAT way, of course we should just erase Southerners culture and leave them adrift! Having been treated to that sort of thing first hand, we really ought to be more than eager to visit it on others, eh? That'll make everything alright then! Let's do it today, starting with redefining FOR THEM what their own symbology means.”


Again, I’m not speaking for a THEM. AFRICAN AMERICANS (especially the ones still there) ARE southerners! This of course do to the fact that most slaves – though not all – resided in the south. So we TOO have say in the representation of the flag. To wrap this up, one of the reasons this site exists holds with our beliefs that we need to be aware in order to make this world livable for ourselves and our families. To continue to move backwards in history promoting symbolism that have long since been deemed horrible – BY BLACK SOUTHERNERS – is insane.

We can’t and in this case you don’t have to assume. I am telling you that I have seen the harm caused of that flag from years of growing in the south. So , you can take my word for it.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I love how the confederacy instantly goes from being the ethnocentric Economic powerhouse of the 18'th century, with more money and resources than some industrialized nations had at that same time, to a giant Co-op of brow beaten meek and sweaty solider farmers who had just recently saved America from Mexico and were then burned into poverty by the faceless hordes of Abraham Lincolns satanic minions.

Talk about revisionism. It's Amazing!

I don't think anything should be done about the confederate flag.

Freedom means freedom for everyone.

You can fly Nazi flags for all I care. That is your right as a citizen.
Just because I think the confederate flag is a symbol of terrorism does not mean that your freedoms or heritage are being impinged. My opinion is less than a grain of sand on a beach of BS that never ends.
So I will continue to proclaim the confederate flag as a symbol of terrorism. That doesn't mean you can't have it, display it, or wrap yourself in it every night to inspire angelic chorus filled heritage dreams while you sleep. It jsut means I don't agree with you. Because that is my right as well. Because even though I'm not southern, and I don't wear confederate print man panties every day to snuggle my heritage against my taint, I still understand and deserve freedom.

Only the people who tend to fly confederate flags only seem to want freedom to mean what they and other people with confederate flags think freedom should mean.

You wanna put your money where your mouth is. Go to very next Pro- Gay marriage rally in your area waving your confederate flag and explain to each person who gives you a dirty look that you will support their freedoms if they will support yours. I think you would be surprised.

You won't do it. Cause you just want "your" kind of freedom,,,,you know.....for you.

Because you "actually" deserve it since your family heritage is all about dying for freedom.
edit on 22-9-2011 by Butterbone because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

"I have come to an assumption". That translates roughly to "Abara Cadabara, I have an argument".


Fair enough in so much as you recognize this statement of yours roughly translates to about the same thing:


The confederate flag was flown by people who didn't want to be Americans. The confederate flag was flown by people who killed REAL Americans.

and this:


Confederate Flag = Al Qaeda = Terrorist!!!


I guess it's important here to have a full understanding of what exactly your definitions of a 'terrorist' and 'real' Americans to be, because the only hint of a definition comes from the statements that the flag was flown by people who killed 'real' Americans and "Confederate Flag=Al Qaeda=Terrorist!!!". Followed to its logical conclusion this would mean you believe northerners to be the only 'real' Americans and therefore not terrorists and free of any guilt of the killing they did. So, you see, as you are having a hard time understanding my post to you, I am having a hard time equating Osama Bin Laden to, lets say, Jefferson Davis. Please tell me so I can understand your point of view.

Now, in reply to your posting back to me that inspite of the attempt at insult, I appreciate.. let me see if I can clear this up a bit for you. This is your statement that prompted my direct response to you:



See there you go. Obviously some of those terrorists still don't want to be Americans. Alabama and Georgia = Sleeper Cells of Al-Qaeda (south).

Everything you need to know about the south is already known.


Apparently everything you need to know about the south is not already known, which is why I was motivates to give you a brief history of your home state on the topic of the Civil War. I was taught in school many years ago that any state south of the Mason-Dixon line is, by definition, a southern state and Kentucky is below the Mason-Dixon line last time I checked. That being said, aside from the fact it voted to remain neutral in the Civil War, history tells us that while it was absorbed into the side of the Union because of that vote of neutrality, it very much displayed southern sympathies, continuing to play a major role in the transport of slaves and goods to the south which I dare say would have triggered many a Confederate flag being flown on Kentucky soil, your home state or at least your current location. I would wager that even today you see a smathering of the Confederate flag being flown from front porches in the Bluegrass state. Your response above was directed at AL and GA specifically because those were the states mentioned in Hadriana's post to you. I dare say however that if you uttered those words on the street corner or bar of any southern state (of which KY is one) you would most likely be shown the door rather quickly, even in KY.

You obviously have very strong opinions on this topic, which is good. Stand your ground for what you believe in..much like the southern states.
This does however prompt me to ask you 2 questions, which are honest inquiries to better understand just why you would equate someone flying the Confederate flag with terrorists of the most ugly sort. Those questions would be:

1. What is your definition of terrorist?
2. Why do you equate the Confederate flag being flown with someone being a terrorist?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The confederacy was a terrorist organization because it attempted to separate itself from the union of states. It wanted to be a distinct political social and economic entity. This attempt, if successful would have been a revolution not unlike the American revolution.

Had the American revolution failed, it would have been called a failed rebellion. While it may be possible to get into a deep and pedantic argument about the subtle difference between a Rebel and Terrorist, I don't think it is worthwhile.

If you can prove that no confederate army troop ever brought arms to bear against a union civilian, I'll concede a significant difference between rebel and terrorist. Since we all know that isn't possible, then I'm left the leeway to label the failed rebels as terrorists.

Since terrorism is a methodology then you can lump all terrorists together in their work regardless of their ideology.

If you want to know why I feel that I can make these distinctions you can look at my profile. I've spent more than my share of time dealing with the subject of terrorism.

So in the sense that terrorists are simply the losers in a conflict where one organization is legitimized and the other criminalized, those who show continuing devotion to the ideals and principles of the criminalized organization are sympathizers at best and constituents of the criminalized organization at worst.

If you feel that a single states rights go above the call of the whole union, then you are still a confederate, and a terrorist.
If you feel that the union is as it should be,(theoretically how it should be of course) and you just have a fondness for history and associate with your cultural heritage, then you are just an enthusiast. As such you should have no problem with the idea that the confederacy was in fact a failed rebellion.

I have friends who reenact WWII skirmishes and they dress up as Nazis. They're families are german origin and they had relatives who died wearing nazi uniforms. They don't spend all of their time trying to convince everyone else that the Nazis were really the heros of WWII. They accept that their families were on the wrong side of history.
This is what confederate enthusiasts need to learn to do. They need to learn to accept that their family heritage was simply on the wrong side of history and be able to admit that.
The problem is they spend all their time and energy trying to revise history and change other peoples opinion.
And it's not going to happen.
And the longer they go on and on about heritage the more and more it sounds racist and deceptive because the constant attempt to change the view of history is intellectually dishonest and EVERYONE involved knows it.

So they keep pushing that stone up the hill and then getting angry and insulted when the hill doesn't want to flatten out for them.

And in my opinion in this is the rub. If you want to honor your heritage and not feel like you have to defend the flag that represents it, (which isn't even accurate by the way) Then stop trying to defend it.

When someone says, "The Confederate Flag is racist", you respond with, "Yeah at one time it was. But it's not a symbol of that anymore. Now it's a reminder of who we want to be and what we've learned since then."

But they can't do that. Cause that's not what they want. They want to be acknowledged as not having been on the wrong side of history, just the losing side.
And I have heard MANY MANY people make that exact statement.

That ideology means you still wish the south had won, and that makes you a terrorist.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


What do think your black friend's are talking about behind your back; when you go mouthing off the "n word," and having a Confederate flag patch on your motorcycle jacket. I'm sure they either laugh off the "cracker," are spoiling for a fight, or complaining to management about your verbal prejudicial behavior.

The mouthing of the "n word" friom a white person to a black person, in the company I work for, here in Maryland, is grounds for dismissal of said employee. The least you will get is a warning, meaning that you will be fired on the third warning for any other grounds for dismissal. Plus... You will have to apologize too the black person; if you do not you will be fired.

During my childhood, I was raised on a former slave plantation here in Maryland, in an old smokehouse with two foot thick walls. It had a huge impact on my upbringing, when I learned that the slave graveyard was torn up, to make way for apartments, about the time of my birth. My relatives never owned the property, where the slave graveyard was located.

My grandfather fought in the Boer War as a German allied soldier fighting against the English. The Boer's never signed a truce with the English. I have to live and work with people who have prejudice. I even have prejudice against certain people. It all depends about what level you want to take it too, but flying the Confederate flag is something that I do not prefer to do.





edit on 22-9-2011 by Erno86 because: spelling

edit on 22-9-2011 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 22-9-2011 by Erno86 because: ditto



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by femalepharoe

1. Well since your good at quoting, you will note that I wrote “Those on this site familiar with MK Ultra programming can closely relate it to that.” Meaning you may use your knowledge of the systematic torture and mind breaking slavery to help you understand why owners of slaves were not worried about their own safety as the slave was so well trained as to not harm his slave family.


But not, apparently, well trained enough to not run away? It's my understanding that MKUltra programming is alleged to be so deeply rooted that "slaves" don't even realize they are "slaves". Are you saying that southern slaves didn't know they were slaves, and so would not rebel in any way?



2. Good catch. I mis…typed? Him being African-American is an argument that you , as you say , are unable to pronounce. See, [you] as an outsider [to the AA community] don't get to define what something of [our] own means to [US].


Argument as a "mis-type" accepted. So, Obama is NOT "African-American" to REAL "African Americans"? What is he in their eyes then?

See, the whole "Hyphenated-American" issue is very confusing to me, whether it's "African-American", "Irish-American", "Italian-American", "Arab-American", "Native-American", etc., etc. You're either one or the other. I personally am an "American-American", and don't feel a need to stutter it.



Going back to you “Outsiders don’t get to define” statement, I think is an excellent indicator of how African Americans have repeatedly been undermined and ignored through history. If my entire (traceable) family is from the south, tilled the land, cooked for and maintained the great southern manors, and built the cobble stone streets by hand – Is it not MY south as well???? Of course is it, but due to guilt and denial , you would have me believe that black people are an “outsider” to the South and thus have no say , or are over sensitive, in their association to it.


Touche! Of course it's your south as well. No reason you should feel an outsider, being born and raised there. I take it that you aren't a "Confederate", though, so the flag in question isn't yours, nor is it effective as a national symbol for a nation overrun, nor even an area, any more. I'm content to let those who promote the symbolism define the symbolism of their own symbols.




In some cases, other Africans sold them, but in most it was Arabs. I can't see how it matters either way unless they sold their own selves, individually. If someone else is enslaving and selling you, does it really matter WHO is doing it?


4. YES, that was MY point, wasn’t it?? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?


Maybe, but I've never been told so, nor has any testing borne that hypothesis out. Still, it's a possibility. So tell me WHY it matters who did the capturing and selling? Isn't the greater issue the enslavement itself? If it matters who does it, WHY does it matter?



5. On tribal languages. Black people do not have a monopoly but you did just prove my point that you are familiar with your language and name. And honestly I don’t know why you are coming at me, do you support southern racist rednecks? This is a yes or no question.


I'm barely familiar with the language, but still learning - no thanks to those who would have preferred it to be erased. We kept it alive ourselves, against the odds. Among us, names are given by one's parents, or as an accolade to his own honors, and ancestral names or accomplishments don't enter the equation. No, I don't support "southern racist rednecks", nor any OTHER sort of racist. There are all kinds, and the more entertaining ones try to hide it behind hubris.



Again, I’m not speaking for a THEM. AFRICAN AMERICANS (especially the ones still there) ARE southerners! This of course do to the fact that most slaves – though not all – resided in the south. So we TOO have say in the representation of the flag. To wrap this up, one of the reasons this site exists holds with our beliefs that we need to be aware in order to make this world livable for ourselves and our families. To continue to move backwards in history promoting symbolism that have long since been deemed horrible – BY BLACK SOUTHERNERS – is insane.


But the "them" you speak for is not the "them" of that flag. It's a "Confederate Flag" or a "Rebel Flag", not a "Southern Flag", To go back to one of your earlier analogies, it's no different than me trying to define what the "X" in Malcolm's name really means. It's not my symbol to define.



We can’t and in this case you don’t have to assume. I am telling you that I have seen the harm caused of that flag from years of growing in the south. So , you can take my word for it.


Sure, I can take your word for it, as soon as I hear those words. What harm has that flag, a bit of cloth, an inanimate object, done to you?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I just want to know at what point did symbols, words and ideas become weaponized so that someone is actually being "hurt" by them?
Kids used to tease me in school for being the shortest one there and do you know what my mother told me?
"sticks and stones may"....you know the rest.

Another question: who now gets to decide which are "too offensive" for public display or usage?
The ministry of truth perhaps?


May I quote: "The pen is mightier than the sword."



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Really Untrue?


I grew up in Mississippi, I see the Confederate flag as my heritage and not racism. People may adopt whatever symbolism to convey their agenda. Trying to say that the war was about slavery is crap (READ), there were just as many slaves in the North.

You people drink too much Kool-aid.


edit on 22-9-2011 by Doom and Gloom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Erno86

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

They didn't commit atrocities under the flag.




If you believe that the Confederate Army did not commit atrocities under the Confederate Flag -


My Great-Great grandfather on my mothers side was in the 22nd Va Cavalry, under McCausland. Neither he, nor anyone else in my family that I've been able to find, ever owned a slave. None of them were ever rich enough to afford to own their very own people. That didn't keep him from burning Chambersburg MD. Pretty atrocious, and no less atrocious than the burning of Atlanta. It's just a matter of scale.

The flag he rode under is on display in a museum in Richmond, VA. It's a square Confederate Battle Flag, the same sort that is commonly on display today and under discussion here as a "Confederate flag". He didn't ride under it to preserve his slaves, since he didn't have any. He rode to preserve his family and his country from invaders.

Did he commit atrocity in the burning of Chambersburg? yeah, I'd say so. How far are you willing to go in the preservation of your family and your nation? I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you until you're pressed to that extreme by an invading enemy. I'd like to think I wouldn't go that far, and so far never have, but you never know what you might do when you're up to your nostrils in hot grease which is getting deeper until you're right there in it.



I not quite certain, but I believe that some of the soldiers of the Confederate Army, during the Battle of South Mountain, in Maryland, threw dead human corpses down the wells of private landowners; with the intention of contaminating the wells.

Source: Battle of the Monocacy

During the Battle of the Monocacy, around July 9, 1864, Confederate forces under Lt. Gen. Jubal A. Early,
tried to divert Union forces away from Gen. Robert E. Lee's army under seige at Petersburg Virginia.

At Frederick Md. following skirmishing on July 7, and 8, in which Confederate cavalry drove Union units from the town. Early demanded, and recieved $200,000 dollars ransom to forestall the destruction of the city.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Erno86
 


I would never dream of saying something like that at work. I'm talking about close friends and family. They aren't saying anything behind my back, they are saying it to my face. I also have black friends that wear confederate flags as well.

You are right about a professional setting though, I wouldn't even consider it, no matter how friendly I was with someone.

The flipside of that, and something that really offends me, is a lot of the white people at work will say, "Is he/she....." and then tap their hands to indicate black. There is plenty of racism at my office, and it isn't the people that would feel comfortable using the n-word, it is the regular white folks that appear to be completely professional.

Racism might still exist, but it isn't the folks flying confederate flags, it is the folks sneaking around with their own kind where they think it is ok. I happen to despise that type of racism. I'd rather people be upfront about it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the sneakiness is indicative that they know it is wrong and they do it anyway.




top topics



 
17
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join