can a flag really inspire raceism? can the politions really make us(the south)change. they removed Montacello off the nickle and put two hands. that just sucks. whats next?

[edit on 27-11-2004 by DRAGON27]

I don't think it inspries racism. It has it's basis on a somewhat racism principle, but what doesnt? I dont think white sheets at wal-mart will inspire a protest, but if used in the wrong way it can be viewed as racist.

I had seen a shirt that had the confederate flag and below it it said 'if this flag is offensive to you, you need a history lesson'.

I find that humourous. The south seceded largely over an issue of states rights and the power of the federal government. Well enough. And on that alone the confederate flag should be banned, burned, defiled and destroyed.

As far as it being a symbol of racism, well, no matter what way anyone looks at it, slavery was an important issue in the civil war, and it was the southern states that more or less promoted, defended, protected, and advocated slavery. True, its not as simple an issue as that, but its not far off.

Anyway when I see the confederate flag I do think of slack jawed yokels rutting around their pig farm who are disdainful of desegregation and the like, so the symbol has been co-opted by others, and thats not anyone elses responsibility except for the 'pro confederate flaggers'. And, agian, i see no reason to respect, indeed, to not despise, a symbol of illegal monstrous rebellion against the nation.

It doesn't affect me emotionally either way. It reminds me of the Dukes of Hazzard. My black office-roommate thinks it's a symbol of the white man holding the black man down. It's true that a lot of racists wave the flag, there's no getting around that fact. I certainly don't think it should be burned, that's kind of ignorant.

The flag was not really a specific symbol of pro-slavery until it was adopted by white supremacists. Along these lines, the swastika was not a symbol of racism until the Nazi Germans adopted it as a party symbol. Their party became associated with racism when they presented their seriously racist plans for the world during the war.

I don't think either of these symbols should be burned or spit upon, rather I believe they should be taken at face value - if a flag is waved by a racist, they are probably using it as a symbol of racism. If it's flown by a southerner who is intent upon alerting the viewer to the fact that they are not racist, they are showing pride. If a swastika is on a buddhist temple, the message conveyed is obviously markedly different from a swastika spraypainted on a Jewish storefront. Take them as they come.

"Confederate."

Zip

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Zipdot]

I really don't know why the confederate flag causes such resentment in some people. It's a part of the Southern heritage.
Why do the tourists like looking at all the antebellum mansions around here? They were built by slave labor. Should'nt they be torn down???

typical media BS, there is nothing racist about the flag. BTW Dis-honest Abl and his north was much more racist than the south was. Unfortunately the flag is used by racists, but that is on the part of the people not the flag. People are just spreading their anti-south propaganda 139 years after the war is over. They know the south was right and all they can do is slander/attack the south. Its a common tactic used in law if you cant attack your opponent's case because the law is on his side, then you attack the opponent.

And who spell "confederate," "confederit!"

Deliverance was on TV today.





Sorry, Dragon, but your point is lost by your poor spelling.



[edit on 23-11-2004 by HowardRoark]

Screw the Yankees

I have a black buddy that has the flag in his living room (same as me) does that make him a "slack jawed racist?" The succession was not Illegal at the time and the end of the Civil war was the end of the union as our fore fathers intended. You are right though it was not about slavery, that would have died out in a few more years anyway, it was about states rights. We in the south thought that we entered the union by our own choice and we had the right to leave the same way.

sorry for the spelling but i dont think point was lost.

A flag, like any symbol, is what you make of it. For example, before the Nazis took the swaztika as their symbol, thus making it the symbol of pure evil for many in the modern world, the swaztika was actually (and still is) a symbol of good fortune in India.

To me, a historical flag is just that -- a flag of an entity that no longer exists. If a historical flag still has deep meaning for you, then you're living in the past.

"Today, what many people believe to be the offical Confederate flag was actually the Confederate Naval Jack. The battle flag of the army of Northern Virgina -- which was used as the canton of the Second National flag -- was square."

It is intersting to know that Lincoln,... as most presidential candidates,... use sharply dividing issues on their election platform, to firm their potential votes, or attract moreso.

But today,.... we cannot easily fly the British jack variant now, becouse it has been adopted as a symbol of the slavery that plagued America, even though it never represented such.

And after the civil war ended,... well the winner's get to say what they want.

They wanted to show themselves and constituants how right they were in the war. So the south will forever be foresaken to be 'slack-jawed or klan member's' or rednecks.

These stereotypes as well as other's, still thrive to this day. But without reason.

I know what you mean about the stereotype Smirkley. Here's a story for you that may be a tad off topic.
We had a Ritz-Carlton hotel built here near where I live (in Georgia). The owners were from "up north". They were hireing employees but did not like the applicants who had heavy southern accents. They were trying to not hire those people. They did not think that the southern accents suited the "persona, amibence, etc. whatever!" of their fancy hotel. They seemed to especially hate the word "y'all".
Well one lady who was turned down for a job because of her accent decided to threaten a law suit.
The Ritz-Carlton changed their point of view after this and hired the lady. Plus our local paper got wind of it and did a little write up about how the hotel was discriminateing.
I was shocked when I heard about this. What if I went to NewYork and tried to make everyone stop saying "You's guys" or whatever it is they say???

elaine

I have another story for you.

We had a Yankee company come down here to build a Dam. They turned away EVERYONE from around here till it got out that they were doing it because the owner said "everyone knows Southerners are stupid inbred lazy drunks." Once that got out they couldnt hire us fast enough.

And we still hear it on this board about slack jawed inbreds and such. If half of this was said about Blacks or Jews they would be a flame war but you can say it about Southerners and its OK.

Hi. Did you read the thread? I said exactly what you said earlier, only BETTER! (Just kidding, but please read before posting.)

Zip

Perhaps more of an idiot? Displaying the flag of the country that was largely responsible for the enslavement of his 'race. After all, it was the South that was executing blacks out of hand if thy were caught as soldiers.


They certainly didn't intend that states could leave and enter the Federation at will. And of course the war itself wasn't an attempt to enforce the 'illegality' of the succession, but rather a war between two sperate entities. THe south left, a war inevitably broke out, and they were occupied by the north.


You are right though it was not about slavery, that would have died out in a few more years anyway,

You did know that the South had blacks fighting in their army too, right?




Show me the part of the Constitution before the civil war that says the states could not leave? That WAS the reason of the war.

\

Do you see slavery in ANY modern country today? It would have died out in a few years JUST LIKE IN EVERY OTHER COUNTRY even among us "slack jawed yokels"



Again show me where it says we COULDNT leave? It plainly states that any power NOT GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT resides in the hands of the states, since it never mentioned ANYTHING about the Federal Government being able to FORCE the states to stay in the union it could be EASILY understood as the right to leave.

To some of us its more of a symbol of standing up to the Federal Government. I dont and wont try to justify slavery any fool knows that its wrong, just like the slaughter of the Indians by the Federal government so the Yankees dont own the moral highground. That was a different time back then and things ANY decent person would despise were commonplace

I have one on my wall and would be happy to give you my address so you can come down a tear it off my wall

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Amuk]

So Nygdan, are you saying that those that have this flag are "slack jawed yokels"? Because there are many that do. The term is insulting though.

Firstly, I can see that you are particualrly incensed at my use of the 'slack jawed yokel' term. Well that was not my intent, I was merely trying to illustrate what the confederate flag has come to represent and, as I clearly stated, what I think of when I think of it. Its because the Confederate Flag has become a symbol of everything that was wrong with the South. Of course, Southerners for some bizzare reason have taken it as a glorious symbol of their independence and 'pride', but the disgustingly rebellious Confederacy was nothing to be proud of. And, I would like to re-iterate, I don't think that the Confederate flag should be part of any state flag or any sort of official symbolism and, if ever there was a group or symbol that should be outlawed, its the hated rebellious Stars and Bars (irregardless of the actual debate over what flag is a naval jack and which is the official flag of state) entirely because they rebelled against the Federal government and went to war with it and had to be invaded, conquered and reconstructed. Not because of slavery specifically.



Sure, and they still felt that any members of this subhuman slave race should be destroyed immeadiately if they were fighting for the other side, rather than taken prisoner.


Show me the part that details how they could. Its obviously not the intent that continued pressence in the Federation was voluntary. If that was part of the intent, then they'd detail how it would be done. Whether it was a result of a popular vote, or by fiat of the representative state legislature or whether it had to be apporoved by the governor or whatever. Everything else was worked out in detail, including the specific days that presidents and such would be elected. The Constitution was the founding document of a new federalist nation, and there was a process by which states could join. Once in, they could only leave by outright illegal rebellion. What if a town wanted to succede? Or part of a town? Or everyone in one state and some in the neighboring states? No, succession was illegal.

Most nations on the arabian penninsula practice slavery. I see the lack of slavery throughout most of the world because of strenuous efforts to put it down, even when it required war, whether it was the north occupying and reconstructing the entire rebellious south of the British invading and incorporating south africa.

Slavery didn't 'die out' practically anywhere. It was most often only stopped because of the application of force, whether from the slaves themselves as in the French colonies in teh west indies or from a central government, such as the British. The hypocritical 'state rightists' who enslaved their fellow man were obviosuly never going to allow it. Besides which the cotton based southern ecomony ensured that slavery would exist for decades longer, at minimum. And even with the civil war and the resultant abolition of slavery the southern states still made blacks have sub-citizen status. Then after rampant reconstruction, once the carpet baggers left, they again made things difficult for blacks. Hell, the civil war and the civil rights movement were seperated by a hundred years (more or less), so I do not think its accurate to say that slavery would've died off naturally. It was extremely profitable and effecient.

There is nothing in the Constitution or any of the discussions about its creation and meanings by the founders that I am aware of the describes any possiblity of entire states being able to leave the nation. And if anything, it aclls for it to not happen, since congress is required to enforce and protect the public peace, and putting down a rebellion that certainly falls under that. When the Articles of Confederation were found to be unacceptable to many states, they never left it, they got together and had a new constitutional convention and created the constitution. The rebellious states shoudl've made a bid for holding a new convention. As it was, they probably couldn't get enough support amoung their own reps to do this.

Ultimately, there are one or two 'precendents' on the matter (pre-civil war anyway). The Whiskey Rebellion and the Hartford Convention.

On the Whiskey rebellion, one incident In paticular I think is revealing.


Now, you would argue that this is legal? ANd that the Founders felt that it would be too?


Now, while they didn't recommend outright Secession,even tho it was oopenly discussed and widely considered, they did go thru the process of submiting constitutional ammendments to address their greivances.

Other instances of parts of the population having a problem with the Federal Governement or even states having problems, like Shays rebellion and others, show that the Federal Government has teh right and responsiblity to use force to put down insurrection, which is what secession is. It also shows that the country can't be unified and public peace can't be held if entire states or populations within states are able to take it upon themselves to secede from the Union. Indeed, its not the Agreemed States of America, nor the Co-operating States of America, but the federal United States, the union can't legally be broken, short of a constitutional ammendment to permit it, and in all honesty there is an argument to be made the the union itself is extra-consitutional (tho obviously not the federal character) and that even then it might not be permitted.


And the Hartford convention and the general new england seccession problem illustrates the point. It was largely motivated by problems with 'the west and south'. THe disputes between the states are to be settled by Congress, everyone agreed to that when they ratified the constitution. Not by succession and rebellion.

edited to clean up attributions.



[edit on 25-11-2004 by Nygdan]

Standing up, no. Armed insurrection and rebellion out of personal interests and the need to manipulate power.


If the Yankees can consider buying pedro martinez, then surely they can consider purchasing the Moral High Ground. I don't think that they have much interest in realty, but perhaps their corporation is diversifying its portfolio.


Blech. I would if it were legal, but for some stupid reason you are permited to hang a call for the absolution of the nation and the destruction of the union. The confederate flag is something I place in the same leagueas the read flag of internationalist radical militant communism. Calling for death destruction and war of the United States should not be something to be proud of, heck it shouldn't even be legal.


No. I said "when I see the confederate flag I do think of slack jawed yokels rutting around their pig farm ", not that everyone who bought a confederate flag is a white supremacist, drooling moron who owns a pig farm.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Nygdan]