I don't even see the dilemma. The Flag was created in defense of slavery. The men who bled the ground red did so for or against a racist ideal. This was and will always be the Flag of the racist south, and they should be no less ashamed of it than Germans the Swastika.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I don't even see the dilemma. The Flag was created in defense of slavery. The men who bled the ground red did so for or against a racist ideal. This was and will always be the Flag of the racist south, and they should be no less ashamed of it than Germans the Swastika.
Good grief.
I think the damn flag is now, generally, a racist symbol, but even I do not swallow that over simplified, manichean codswallop.
You're right dlowan. From what I learned back in the day, slavery was really a secondary issue. It was about money and power, what all wars boil down to.
The average Northerner at the time couldn't have cared less if Dixie had slaves. But they needed the South to remain part of the union so their textile mills could keep churning out materials, The raw material was grown in the South.
The words of Lincoln should help anyone understand what the consequences would be should the Union have failed in the Civil War. As he says, the Union would not be dissolved but there would no longer be any division between slave states and free states, all of the states would be slave states. That's what the Confederates were fighting for and that would have been this nation's legacy, we would have become the largest, richest most powerful slave nation in the world.
Those who raise the banner shown on the first page of this thread ought to be ashamed of themselves. They dishonor the very fabric notion of this nation, that all men are created equal, that all have been given the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The flag displayed is the banner of those who would deny basic freedoms to citizens of this great country for no other reason than they would do it if they had the power to do so. They are not men, they are a stain on this nation.
Joe(yes. They are.)Nation
Did Joe Nation just agree with me, while disagreeing with Deb?
Great reference Joe. The speech is available
here for those ignorant of our nation's epic history of racism, how, and why it came to be abolished.
I'm quite surprised by your response, Deb. While most comparison's to Nazi crimes against humanity are quite absurd; American Slavery is not one of them. Even the most conservative estimates suggest 6 million 1st generation slaves died prematurely as a result of Slavery. Some as high as 60 million, with the likely truth being 15-20 million. American Slavery is among the most atrocious crimes against humanity ever committed, and that flag was created in defense of it. A handy reference guide for examining such statistics can be found
here.
If any of ya'll ever make it up to my current neck of the woods, and can stomach a sober eye opener about our history; Milwaukee is home of America's Black Holocaust Museum... perhaps the only one of it's kind. It's well worth the couple bucks for admission.
But besides it's inglorious past, let us now consider it's use in those fifty recent years to which some have referred. My personal favorite amongst those offered to me over the years in it's defense is that it's not a racist symbol but a symbol defining the defense of Southern Culture and Heritage. Really? Do tell.
C'mon somebody, tell us how.
Joe(laying up in the tall weeds, waiting, grinning)Nation
In the last 50 years what was the battle flag of an army has been turned into a racist symbol of great divisiveness.
A few above are correct - the north never cared about slavery in the south. It wasn't what the war was about.
whether its racist or not depends entirely on the the context in which it is displayed.
What the north really wanted was the slaves to fight on their side. That pretty much guaranteed them "emancipation".
cjhsa wrote: In the last 50 years what was the battle flag of an army has been turned into a racist symbol of great divisiveness.
A few above are correct - the north never cared about slavery in the south. It wasn't what the war was about.
Could you possibly be more ignorant of your country's history? Friggin amazing from someone who believes he's a proud American. Why do you suppose the South wanted to split in the first place? Ever hear of the Underground Railroad? Ever read one of Lincoln's speeches? Ever examined the reasons for secession stated by the South? Ever notice the first States to announce secession were those with the densest slave populations? Do you own an encyclopedia? Ever heard of Wikipedia? Why would you choose to opine from such a willfully ignorant position? This isn't a difference of opinion. This is a recognition of heinous fact. Here, I'll grab you an example (sheesh):
Wikipedia wrote:South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes for Secession" started with an argument for states' rights for slaveowners in the South, followed by a complaint about states' rights in the North, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations. The Constitutional obligations in question were as follows:
Refusal of Northern states to enforce the fugitive slave code. Northern states used states' rights arguments for passing personal liberty laws.
Agitation against slavery, which "denied the rights of property" established in the Constitution.
Assisting "thousands of slaves to leave their homes" through the Underground Railroad.
The election of Lincoln "because he has declared that that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
"...elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens."[18]
Steve 41oo wrote:whether its racist or not depends entirely on the the context in which it is displayed.
This is simply not true. While it's entirely possible some ignorant hick might display it without knowing it's a racist symbol, a racist symbol it is. It was created in defense of one of the most horrific crimes against humanity mankind has ever known.
cjhsa wrote:What the north really wanted was the slaves to fight on their side. That pretty much guaranteed them "emancipation".
There wouldn't have been a "side" if not for Slavery, you ignorant fool.
Slavery, although a big reason for the Civil War, was not the only one, and even that was clouded or cloaked withing other issues.
The South had felt, ever since the Revolutionary War, that they were not being treated equally to the North.
The South had to import more goods than the North did, as they were mainly an agricultural area. Thus, they ended up paying more in tariffs. Also, they were several bank scares which effected more Northern banks than Southern, but the South was hit monetarily with helping bailing them out.
Also, what was proposed, at least at one point (sorry, not sure) was not that slavery be abolished in the South, but that it could not spread beyond the states in which slaves were being used at that time. Thus, with the expansion to the West, the South felt as though their economic chances paled when compared to the North, as all they really had going for them, and keeping their head above water financially, was cheap labor. Remember, the South had no industry to speak of, only agriculture.
In honesty, stating the entire reason for the war was slavery is rather naïve.
I'm not saying there weren't people involved in the Underground Railroad, and who believed slavery was wrong as a human right issue, but it's not the entire story.
That said, I still believe the flag is racist, not for what it represented at that moment, but for the connotation given to it by the majority of people who display it today. To the South during the Civil War, that flag represented them fighting to maintain their economic viability, which yes, included slavery. Today, it is displayed by those who are not so much worried about what will happen to their livelihood, but by people who are of the mind that they are superior. In truth, it makes them look ignorant.
A flag cannot be racist. Since it is incapable of intent, it is incapable of either endorsing or rejecting racism. It is only the usage of that flag that makes it a symbol of racism. A Confederate flag flying in a cemetery can have a different meaning from a Confederate flag flying at a Klan rally. It just so happens that the usage of the flag as a racist symbol has been far more prominent in the years since the 1950s.
joefromchicago wrote:A flag cannot be racist. Since it is incapable of intent, it is incapable of either endorsing or rejecting racism. It is only the usage of that flag that makes it a symbol of racism. A Confederate flag flying in a cemetery can have a different meaning from a Confederate flag flying at a Klan rally. ...
Thank you. Thats exactly what I meant and thought I expressed quite clearly when I said it all depends on context. Is the director of a museum racist because he displays a Confederate flag?
Bill, the more history I read, and the more I read it, the more it changes (to be more politically correct). Basically, if I believed what is being written today, I'd be less likely to take offense at being called an "ignorant fool", because I would be one.
Joefromchicago wrote:A Confederate flag flying in a cemetery can have a different meaning from a Confederate flag flying at a Klan rally.
Really? What? Racism of an earlier time? A time when Klan values weren't as frowned upon by some racist imbeciles that didn't have the decency to recognize it's inherent wrongness despite constant prodding to wake up?
Steve 41oo wrote: Is the director of a museum racist because he displays a Confederate flag?
No, because historical racism is precisely what he's displaying it to reflect.
Chai, your history is somewhat accurate, but you're missing the forest depicted by your trees.
Slavery's expansion to the west. Correct in that that was a driving force for secession, compounded by Lincoln's House divided speech. Not only were northerners and southerners alike assisting 10s of thousands of escaped slaves to freedom, they were refusing to return them to slavery. Imagine the nerve? The North was also populating faster than the South, which would inevitably have lead to further regulation towards abolishing slavery. This is why they chose secession. I'm sure some Southern History teachers would like to gloss over the horror of reality; but a desire to maintain economic viability through Slavery is hardly a secondary issue. The South's need for Slave labor was and is no justification for same.
Chai wrote:In honesty, stating the entire reason for the war was slavery is rather naïve.
Nobody said it was the only reason... but the FACT is it was the main reason... and the vast majority of other reasons are related to it. The simple fact is: if the South had had the decency to free their slaves before 1861, there would have been no Civil War. Apologists for their despicable heinous atrocities should pause long enough to consider precisely what they are defending. This isn't ancient history, folks. Civilized people throughout the world had already figured out the heinousness inherent in the practice. It's difficult to imagine a time when it wasn't obvious; but that definitely wasn't the case in the mid 19th century.
The Flag in question was created in defense of Slavery. What could possibly be more symbolic of racism?
cjhsa wrote:Bill, the more history I read, and the more I read it, the more it changes (to be more politically correct). Basically, if I believed what is being written today, I'd be less likely to take offense at being called an "ignorant fool", because I would be one.
I'll grant you the name calling was uncalled for. You've amply demonstrated the sentiment anyway. As far as history becoming more politically correct, are you kidding me? Do you think the horror of slavery needs to be exaggerated? I can't believe there is even any opposition coming from people I don't normally think of as racist. It's insane. Please share your history books with a different view. I'd like very much to read your drivel from a supposedly reliable source. I triple dog dare you to produce one.
cjhsa wrote:Bill, the more history I read, and the more I read it, the more it changes (to be more politically correct).
History changes? How that???
Certainly, interpretations of history may change - that's exactly why someone studies history: to find out more & better sources - but until YOU invented a time maschine history can't change at all.
Doesn't the ever increasing study of history produce a logarithmic amount of (more recent) material to cover?
