@hawkeye10,
When her polling numbers rise and her name us on the short list for GOP veep or cabinet member, you will of course recant your stupid idea about this being a political hit she took, I'm sure.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
apparently your "Im a liberal in all things" is showing. If you dont like the majority of her politics (As I do not) You should still give her some credit for standing a ground and getting the deed done.
We liberals can act a lot like the GOP , someone must have made up some rules that we buy it all even the crap part.
Governor Nikki Haley did her job, what any governor of moral principles should do, a job that should have been done a long time ago. Too bad it took the murder of 9 God-fearing innocent people before racist South Carolina decided to take a step forward out of the Dark Ages. Grudgingly, I will admit she should get the credit for acting. The eyes of the world was concentrated on SC after the murders and the swooshing winds of pressure to take the Confederate Flag down was coming from every angle.....there had to be a change! If she had not taken advantage of the opportunity she would have been one dumb politician.
Analogies, if proven correct, can help decide whether an argument is valid.
So, in that spirit, I wonder whether the Nazi Swastika is just a symbol of the Nazi Holocaust, or a symbol of an Aryan philosophy that believes in Aryan superiority.
Meaning, if the Nazi Swastika (that predates the Holocaust) is just a symbol for Aryan racial superiority, and no Holocaust occurred, nor did Aryans ever treat the supposedly inferior "races" poorly (ah yes, noblesse oblige), then what if there was never "chattel slavery," but the Confederate flag existed as a symbol of Southern white superiority to non-whites? Meaning, if Southern whites just dominated the economy (aka, ethnic/racial clannishness), but never needed to have chattel slavery (black farmers paid a wage that could have been a wage that might have been a portent of today's non-livable wage), what would the Confederate flag signify?
From the perception of the colonized people's of the world, the flag of the colonizer never has a positive image. Or, rather an image connotating domination and national hubris.
By the way, where is Southern pride towards one's ancestors supposed to go? Disappear? Not likely. In my opinion, it might just go underground, like any feeling that has been virtually outlawed by political correctness. To prove that point, how many people today, that had relatives in the past that railed about foreigners, Jews, etc., today are really ethnic loving liberals? See my point. Things don't change, just because views become unpopular to be OVERT. They just become COVERT. I'd rather someone not talk to me nicely, than talk to me nicely, and then talk about me pejoratively behind my back (by that definition, this forum is quite honest in its interactions).
What about the USA flag being a symbol of white indentured servitude ? How was that better than black slavery ?
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
What about the USA flag being a symbol of white indentured servitude ? How was that better than black slavery ?
The obvious reason, in my opinion, is that indentured servitude was often amongst those that were using the indentiture to pay for their coming to the New World. No families were broken up, and no children pulled from the arms of their mothers, as in chattel slavery. I would also think that "obstreperous" indentured servants were not whipped. Indentured servitude was based on a business arrangement - a contract. A broken contract resulted in contract law being evoked. Not so in chattel slavery, since slaves were considered property. Is that enough to make your question sound foolish?
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
What about the USA flag being a symbol of white indentured servitude ? How was that better than black slavery ?
Who uses the US flag to symbolize that?
@InfraBlue,
The secession documents of the southern states clearly mention slavery as a reason so the war was clearly about slavery. In the case of the Revolutionary war there is no mention of indentured servitude or a desire to keep that institution anywhere in the documents leading up to the war. It is a false equivalency to try to equate the two.
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Excellent reply, Parados...and right on the mark.
it was in fact idiotic....a hundred other reasons were mentioned by one side or the other, that does not make the war about all of those things too. What we see here is the winner righting the history, the north hated slavery (and perhaps only because it gave the South economic advantages that they did not enjoy) , they won, now they need to believe/claim that this is what it was all about.
You disappoint me Frank, I know that you tend to be swamped with emotion but I thought that your brain would kick in on this point.
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:You usually do better when you are struggling to insult.
I'll assume you are just having an off day
this day and every other day will find me speaking truth. It is a bad habit that I have had since early childhood, I never have been able to break it.
Truth is the new hate speech.
@Foofie,
Not even close . If you would kindly go away and read about indenture and what actually happened, then you wont be here making a fool of yourself by guessing . Chat when you get back .
@InfraBlue,
Travel the world and see the reaction the USA flag has at different locations . Why do foreigners burn it ? Within the USA the flag has mostly good connotations . If you want to be hysterical and take down the Rebel Flag because of black people who in their entire lives have never been slaves, then fine, do so...but admit it is for all the wrong reasons .
@parados,
Quote:The secession documents of the southern states clearly mention slavery as a reason so the war was clearly about slavery.
By selective emphasis you make it sound like that is the only reason .
Quote:In the case of the Revolutionary war there is no mention of indentured servitude or a desire to keep that institution anywhere in the documents leading up to the war.
Again, very selective..slavery is mentioned in the constitution as the right of the whites of the new USA . Indentured whites aren't mentioned, but they continued to arrive .
@hawkeye10,
Quote:What we see here is the winner writing the history
Exactly ! An attempt to unify northerners and blacks whilst ostracising the south, as if they didn't pay enough already .
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:Again, very selective..slavery is mentioned in the constitution as the right of the whites of the new USA .
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
@Walter Hinteler,
Yes it did . What is your point ?
@Ionus,
Quote: By selective emphasis you make it sound like that is the only reason .
Pretty much. All the other language in the document of secession by S Carolina (the first state to secede can easily be seen to read that THE PRINCIPLE issue IS slave holding)
Quote: ..slavery is mentioned in the constitution as the right of the whites of the new USA
Can you point out to us exactly where in the Constitution you believe this resides??
Your knowledge of US history is ok for a foreign interested citizen but youre talking with people whove grown up and have been taught about our history.
I think Id never ever post some detail of Australian history with as much assertion as youve just done.
This is an annoying thing when you keep arguing a point that has been shown to be erroneous many many pages back in this thread.
THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MENTION SLVERY AT ALL EXCEPT TO ABOLISH IT (As Walter so calmly stated--I, pf course, am not as patient)
