1
   

Is This a Racist Flag?

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 01:18 pm
this is all getting rather silly now


and difficult for a non Yankee to follow

except for the bit when Set said I made a good point.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:50 am
http://i15.tinypic.com/2r6coj4.jpg
http://i19.tinypic.com/44t2xyr.jpg

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:51 am
Quote:
Source of pride or prejudice?
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/302323,CST-NWS-flag18.article)

March 18, 2007

BY STEPHEN MAJORS
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- When artist John Sims sees the Confederate flag, he sees ''visual terrorism'' and a symbol of a racist past. When Robert Hurst sees it, he is filled with pride as the descendant of a soldier who fought for the South in the Civil War.

Their differences have flared into a war of words, catching a local museum in the middle.

Hurst walked into the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science last week and saw an exhibit by Sims, including a Confederate flag hung from a noose on a gallows in a display titled ''The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag.''

Hurst asked the museum to remove the display, along with 13 other pieces by Sims.

The museum said Friday it is standing by Sims' work, on display since Feb. 26, because it wants to inspire dialogue about a symbol that engenders strong responses.


'Offensive'
''There's a balance between the nature of the art that we show and the outcome that we seek, which is to promote dialogue and conversation, and have you maybe think of something in a slightly different way,'' said Chucha Barber, the museum's executive director.
Hurst, commander of the local Sons of Confederate Veterans chapter, said Friday he has lost respect for the museum, calling the display of Sims' work ''offensive, objectionable and tasteless.''

In 2004, Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania drew protests from Sons of Confederate Veterans when it displayed the same gallows. Barber said she was unaware of the confrontation.

Florida statutes say it's unlawful to ''deface, defile or contemptuously abuse'' the Confederate flag, but say it's also illegal to prevent the display of the flag ''for decorative or patriotic purposes.''

AP
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 07:22 am
From the below quoted opinion:
"But is it true that you can separate the Confederate flag from the institution of slavery? Is it possible to long for the antebellum South--and its vanished dream of independence--without recalling that nearly 4 million men and women were held in bondage?

Certainly not.
"


Quote:
Flag protesters missing a point

By Steven Lubet
professor of law at Northwestern University
Published March 23, 2007


What is the proper way to hang a Confederate flag? According to artist John Sims, it's from a noose. Not everyone agrees, of course, especially in the South. So it is unsurprising that protests quickly followed when the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science, in Tallahassee, Fla., displayed Sims' installation of a Confederate flag suspended from 13-foot gallows. According to Robert Hurst, commander of the Tallahassee camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, it is offensive to show disrespect for the Confederate flag, which should be treated as a revered symbol of Southern heritage.

More than 140 years after the Civil War, defenders of the Confederate flag continue to fight a rear-guard action, proudly waving the standard while claiming that it stands for nothing more than pride in their ancestry and nostalgia for a vanished way of life. Denying that the flag has any association with slavery or segregation, they often seek its return to public prominence, notwithstanding the protests of civil rights organizations. For example, the Sons of Confederate Veterans boasts a "Flags Across Florida" project, seeking to "put Confederate flags on Florida's major roads."



Any candid historical appraisal of the Confederacy has to recognize that it was motivated by slavery, built on slavery and deeply committed to slavery. Attempts to deny that relationship are naive at best and dishonest at worst. Here are some indisputable facts.

On Dec. 24, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to declare its secession from the Union. Its Declaration of Causes included 18 references to the sanctity of slavery, repeatedly justifying secession as necessary to protect the "right to hold property in slaves." Indeed, the declaration gives only one reason for secession: The Northern states "have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. ... They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes." They have elected a president "whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

Other state secession decrees were to the same effect. Alabama proclaimed its intention to unite with the "slaveholding states of the South." Texas condemned the Lincoln administration as "a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas and her sister slaveholding states." Virginia bemoaned "the oppression of the Southern slaveholding states."

The Confederate Constitution itself was explicit about the heart of its enterprise. Its "Bill of Rights" stated that no law "denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed."

It is true, of course, that the great majority of Confederate soldiers were not slaveholders. Most of the enlisted men fought for their homes, families and comrades-in-arms rather than for the abstract principles of a distant government. But there is still no escaping the fact that defense of the Confederacy meant the perpetuation of slavery for millions of African-Americans. It is impossible to separate the war from the cause.

So if you are tempted to think there might be something benign, or even admirable, about the Confederate flag, just remember that we pledge allegiance not only to the flag of the United States of America, but also "to the republic for which it stands." In the case of the Confederacy, the republic undeniably stood for slavery, which is something that John Sims' provocative artwork will not allow us to forget.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 11:23 am
Good finds, Walter.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 02:25 pm
Excellent finds.

Joe(excellent)Nation
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 03:42 pm
http://i15.tinypic.com/2r6coj4.jpg
http://i19.tinypic.com/44t2xyr.jpg



Wow. That gave me chills. I don't think you could come up with a more fitting final word on the subject than that image.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 03:44 pm
Derivative artwork. Even the title isn't original.

"What Is The Proper Way To Display A U.S. Flag?"
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 03:53 pm
Slavery in America should have ended around 1812 when the British navy shut down the slave trade off of West Africa and nobody should have wanted any part of fighting a war to preserve slavery as an institution in 1860.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 03:53 pm
All Confederate States backers ought to be embarrassed into silence, unfortunately they lack the intelligence to know how pathetic their existence is.

joefromchicago says:
Quote:
Derivative artwork. Even the title isn't original.

Much more startling than the orginal.

I myself would have used a tree branch rather than a gallows.

The piece would have received no notice without the help of those who think they ought to be offended.

Good.

I'm glad they think they are offended.

Joe(they are a stain on this nation)Nation
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 03:59 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Derivative artwork. Even the title isn't original.



Ah well, nothing new under the sun...you can't make artwork that isn't derivative of something...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 09:12 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Slavery in America should have ended around 1812 when the British navy shut down the slave trade off of West Africa and nobody should have wanted any part of fighting a war to preserve slavery as an institution in 1860.


You don't know any more about history than you do about science, apparently. Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution reads, in part:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

On March 2nd, 1807, Jefferson signed into law a bill which prohibited the importation of slaves effective January 1, 1808. The Royal Navy had nothing to do with it. The Parliament in London also passed a bill to outlaw the slave trade in 1807, but enforcement was a joke, and the proof was presented year after year to the Parliament by anti-slavery societies in England, until 1834, when a bill with real teeth was passed, and the First Lord of the Admiralty made a sincere promise to Wilberforce and the abolitionist in England to enforce the end of the slave trade. England paid literally millions of pounds sterling to Spain and Portugal to end the slave trade, which was not accomplished until 1853. Brazil, a very short sea voyage from the slave coast, did not cave into British pressure until 1852.

Furthermore, in 1812, the Royal Navy was engaged in a complete blockade of all European shipping, from the Skagerrak between Demark and Sweden, to the Straits of Gibraltar between Spain and North Africa. The primary reason that the United States Navy was able to survive the Naval War of 1812, and to do so well in single ship actions was that the Royal Navy was in no position to send major resources elsewhere in the world and could only spare a handful of frigates and sloops of war to confront the Americans. So, there were certainly no resources available to patrol and blockade the extensive west coast of Africa, and the Bight of Benin.

You just make this **** up, don't ya Gunga?
0 Replies
 
ironaxe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2007 01:39 pm
God, another Wiki cut-and-paste Septic-Tank that hides behind the same 'constitution' that bleats on about 'rights' and 'freedom' but didn't save the lives of several of it's own Presidents...

I bet the Vietnam war and the Warren Commission were in the constitution, too, Capt.America? Goddamit, we love freedom & free speech- and we'll invade & repress anyone around the world that disagrees... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2007 02:23 pm
ironaxe wrote:
God, another Wiki cut-and-paste Septic-Tank that hides behind the same 'constitution' that bleats on about 'rights' and 'freedom' but didn't save the lives of several of it's own Presidents...

I bet the Vietnam war and the Warren Commission were in the constitution, too, Capt.America? Goddamit, we love freedom & free speech- and we'll invade & repress anyone around the world that disagrees... Rolling Eyes
Shocked As long as you know what you're talking about...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2007 02:34 pm
Yeah, he knows what he's talking about. (Insert appropriate rolly-eyed emoticon here.)

He came in here and started a thread to tell us all that there was nothing special about the Normans. He then proceeded to tell us all about the excellence of Harold of Wessex and the Anglo-Saxons (which did nothing to alter the fact that they were defeated and the Normans took control of England--and a surer control than any Saxon king ever exercised).

Note the screen name--the Saxons had created a new military "secret weapon" at the time of the two attempted invasions of England in 1066. That was a body of ax-weilding, mail-clad warriors who purpose was to deal with lightly armored fanatics like the berserkers (which they effectively did), and any mail-clad swordsmen they met. It was not a bad tactical doctrine, for as far as it went. A swordsman cannot guarantee that his blow will cleave through chain mail, but an ax properly used can cut through mail and disable or kill the target. Axmen could also be relied upon the break a shield wall, the primary defensive formation of both the Saxons and their traditional enemies, the Danes. So, apparently, this joker is enamored of the mail-clad axman. In the end, though, it did them no good. Harold was killed, and William made himself master of all of England after the harrying of the north in the winter of 1069-70.

Basically, he's got a sourpuss attitude because no one took up his offer to pick a fight about whether or not there was anything special about the Normans. Since then, he's been looking for people to sneer at.
0 Replies
 
Achilles the great
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 02:44 pm
Absolutely not a racist flag. It is a part of American history.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 03:11 pm
Are you trying to say American history isn't racist, Achilles? Nearly four hundred years of slavery weren't racist? A century of segregation wasn't racist? Attempts to curtail minority voting, as recent as the 2006 election, aren't racist? Hell, yes, the flag is racist.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 04:49 pm
username wrote:
Are you trying to say American history isn't racist, Achilles? Nearly four hundred years of slavery weren't racist? A century of segregation wasn't racist? Attempts to curtail minority voting, as recent as the 2006 election, aren't racist? Hell, yes, the flag is racist.
Idea
0 Replies
 
Achilles the great
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 06:59 pm
username wrote:
Are you trying to say American history isn't racist, Achilles? Nearly four hundred years of slavery weren't racist? A century of segregation wasn't racist? Attempts to curtail minority voting, as recent as the 2006 election, aren't racist? Hell, yes, the flag is racist.

Slavery please. Havent we all heard that card played enough? I will give you the segregation, curtail the vote, boy we are trying to reel in something with that one aren't we please. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jun, 2007 07:04 pm
You find the institution of slavery dominating our history and insignificant consideration in assessing our history? Are you an idiot, a racist, or both?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 02:06:56