Confederate Flag

[TenEightyOne]

Add on a murder of a black man by suspected Black Panthers for carrying the flag as well, and a KKK and Black Panther protest (that took place at the same time) over the flag.

I mean pick your poison here.

Are you saying that either of those acts are right? What do you mean by inviting us to pick a poison? That's not a phrase that's familiar to me.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Are you saying that either of those acts are right? What do you mean by inviting us to pick a poison? That's not a phrase that's familiar to me.

What I meant was there was additional acts of violence done in the name of purging the Confederate flag from our history books. I just named two. Both are wrong, but what I mean by "pick your poison" is that you can choose what one you want to add to the list as quoted by my previous post.

 

[huskeR32]

The differences you allude to are accurate, but it doesn't change the fact that the original U.S. flag was adopted by a bunch of slave owners into a new country that supported slavery.

Sure, but slavery wasn't the main reason for the American Revolution.

It's more than enough connection to slavery IMO to cause epic outrage on social media and bring forth a campaign to eliminate the original American flag from all retail outlets and call anyone that supports it bad names and blackball them on social media.

Looks like most people are able to contain their "epic outrage" once they expend a modicum of reasonable thinking on this topic, and realize that what the American flag represents, and what the Confederate flag represented, are two very different things.

It would be the pc thing to do.

---

Really? So the truth is irrelevant, only one's feelings on the subject matter, and pointing out the truth or correcting that error is ignorant and insensitive?

I, for one, find the truth to be quite relevant. The secession of the Confederate states was about slavery; a quick read of Mississippi's declaration of secession, for one example, makes that pretty clear.

So what about the millions of Christians for example, who might be offended by the rainbow flag lighting up the White House?

Was that flag ever flown by an army whose main goal was to enslave Christians?

How about people who see the American flag as representing 240 years of slavery and the ensuing oppression of black people?

The only people I've ever heard this idea from are pro-Confederate-flag folks who think they're making a clever point. They're not.

These similarities you're trying to paint between other flags and the Confederate flag are ridiculous. You're ignoring massive amounts of context surrounding them. This hypocrisy you seem so desperate to find simply isn't there.

 

[Formula1269]

So what about the millions of Christians for example, who might be offended by the rainbow flag lighting up the White House?

Too bad, get over it. Until someone can prove otherwise, christianity is a fable, and not real. The lives of homosexuals are real and are now. Big difference.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sure, but slavery wasn't the main reason for the American Revolution.

Americans wanted to be independent of England and part of that independence was the general acceptance of the practice of slavery.

Looks like most people are able to contain their "epic outrage" once they expend a modicum of reasonable thinking on this topic, and realize that what the American flag represents, and what the Confederate flag represented, are two very different things.

See above.

Was that flag ever flown by an army whose main goal was to enslave Christians?

Slavery is not the only reason one might object to a flag being flown.

The only people I've ever heard this idea from are pro-Confederate-flag folks who think they're making a clever point. They're not.

These similarities you're trying to paint between other flags and the Confederate flag are ridiculous. You're ignoring massive amounts of context surrounding them. This hypocrisy you seem so desperate to find simply isn't there.

I'm not making any similarities, I'm asking questions, trying to see how someone can justify denouncing the Confederate Flag when the American Flag could just as easily be seen in the same light. Or my Canadian Flag or our various provincial flags. If I were a child or granchild of an Indian who was torn from their parents against their will and placed in a Residential school and raped and beaten and tortured throughout my childhood, I'd have a much better and more recent grievance relative to something that happened a century and a half ago.

Note also that my responses were after I quoted this post which, to me, advocates a feelings based rationale for determining what is and is not "acceptable", regardless of the truth of the matter. Symbols mean many things to many people, inferring that so long as enough people are unhappy about something, it then becomes socially unacceptable.

 

[huskeR32]

Americans wanted to be independent of England and part of that independence was the general acceptance of the practice of slavery.

But it wasn't even close to being the primary reason. That's why the two situations are so different.

See above.

That doesn't address it. The two flags represent very different things. Most people can see that, hence the lack of outrage. You're in the minority who struggles to accept that.

Slavery is not the only reason one might object to a flag being flown.

Right, which is why your attempt to compare the two didn't really make sense in this discussion.

I'm not making any similarities, I'm asking questions, trying to see how someone can justify denouncing the Confederate Flag when the American Flag could just as easily be seen in the same light.

If you didn't think there were similarities, then you wouldn't be curious about why there are different reactions to other flags. It would be self-evident.

EDIT: You just contradicted yourself in a single sentence. You say you're not trying to draw similarities, but go on to say that the two flags could "easily be seen in the same light." Unless you don't what the word "similar" means, you're talking out of your rear.

Or my Canadian Flag or our various provincial flags. If I were a child or granchild of an Indian who was torn from their parents against their will and placed in a Residential school and raped and beaten and tortured throughout my childhood, I'd have a much better and more recent grievance relative to something that happened a century and a half ago.

Says you. I'm guessing that a black person, who has ancestors that were slaves, who has parents and grandparents that lived through Jim Crow, and who in their own life still faces discrimination - from police, from suspicious store owners, from parents of people they try to date, or any of the myriad ways blacks still struggle to find acceptance in this country - probably isn't so ready to dismiss those concerns as you are.

Note also that my responses were after I quoted this post which, to me, advocates a feelings based rationale for determining what is and is not "acceptable", regardless of the truth of the matter. Symbols mean many things to many people, inferring that so long as enough people are unhappy about something, it then becomes socially unacceptable.

I will also note that you utterly ignored the Mississippi Declaration of Secession that I posted, which is far from a "feelings based rationale" in favor of the stance that the Confederate flag does indeed represent a pro-slavery point of view. In the face of that, your continued claim to be the arbiter of objective truth in this situation is more than a little ironic.

 

[ZedMan1996]

Never seen so many banned users in one thread before.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Symbols mean many things to many people, inferring that so long as enough people are unhappy about something, it then becomes socially unacceptable.

I think you mean implying but yes, you're right. If enough people are unhappy about something then it becomes socially unacceptable. Infanticide is an obvious one, wasn't unusual or unaccepted in some cultures. Slavery is another. Wife-beating is another. This is a point that's probably too wide for this thread but the world's society is getting smaller as we watch/talk/share a lot more. Twenty-five years ago people were mostly tutting at the world news section of their favourite printed newspaper, now they're getting together, unknown and en-masse, to take down lion-hunting dentists. Times change, society changes with them.

 

[squadops]

I wonder just how many Southern Soldiers who fought under the rebel flag owned slaves vs how many simply wanted to preserve their families and way of life.

I fly the flag because I want to be left alone.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I wonder just how many Southern Soldiers who fought under the rebel flag owned slaves vs how many simply wanted to preserve their families and way of life.

I'm sure you're quite right although it's worth noting a couple of things. Firstly; you could say the same about my Uncle Henri who fought under the Swastika (the alternative was being shot for desertion). Secondly the "way of life" notarised by the Confederate states did include slavery.

 

[squadops]

It's known as the war of the rich with the fighting of the poor, that is nothing new.

I disagree it included slavery, what it did include is the rights of the populous to decide, in other words; slavery would have ended without the war.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I disagree it included slavery, what it did include is the rights of the populous to decide, in other words; slavery would have ended without the war.

The primary clause of South Carolina's Declaration of Causes was;

The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.

Texas' document says;

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

Georgia's says;

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property,

Mississippi's says;

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

and Virginia cites;

the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

I say you're wrong and that the war was primarily about those states' perceived Constitutional right to hold slaves as property. There is zero indication that those states were willing to give up that property by either legislative or democratic means - particularly when Texas indicates that slavery "should exist in all future time".

I'm fascinated to hear your response.

 

[Tornado]

I disagree it included slavery, what it did include is the rights of the populous to decide, in other words; slavery would have ended without the war.

It probably would have eventually, certainly. But when you repeatedly make the argument that slavery was incidental to the Civil War, or make absurd comparisons to other modern State's Rights issues like legalizing marijuana when the feds say you can't, it does nothing but torpedo arguments about how the flag doesn't have any negative implications and how others are in the wrong for being bothered by it.

 

[Swagger897]

Sort of reminds me of when people say we didnt go to the moon.

You have the right to pick your opinion, but your opinion is still wrong.

 

[Biggles]

I would add to TenEightyOne's succinct post that the confrontation was not so much about the presence of slavery in the existing southern "slave states", it was about the extension of the right to own slaves in future states. In the years leading up to the Civil war there was a political power struggle between the North & the South which came to a head in the Dred Scott decision (1856-57).

In a nutshell, the Southern states had political influence beyond what was justified by population numbers. The South understood that in order to maintain that political advantage over the rapidly growing populations of the North, they had to ensure that any new states created as the US expanded would fall within the slave camp. This is what the struggle really came down to & why southerners tried to frame it as an issue of "states' rights".

I wonder just how many Southern Soldiers who fought under the rebel flag owned slaves vs how many simply wanted to preserve their families and way of life.

It's known as the war of the rich with the fighting of the poor, that is nothing new.

I disagree it included slavery, what it did include is the rights of the populous to decide, in other words; slavery would have ended without the war.

You're right, in fact almost ALL wars have been fought by the poor to protect the interests of the rich. So, the average, non-slave-owning Southerner was fed propaganda about "states' rights" & preserving "their families & way of life", when, in fact, they were fighting & dying to preserve the way of life of a wealthy elite.

The same kind of propaganda was used to convince millions of Europeans to sacrifice their lives in the First World War. The same kind of propaganda is being used by the elites in the present Presidential campaign to convince working & middle class voters to vote against their own economic interests by framing the election in terms of "Constitutional rights", patriotism, freedom from "religious persecution", protection from "Terror", immigrants, the "gay agenda" etc. etc.

 

[Swagger897]

The same kind of propaganda is being used by the elites in the present Presidential campaign to convince working & middle class voters to vote against their own economic interests by framing the election in terms of "Constitutional rights", patriotism, freedom from "religious persecution", protection from "Terror", immigrants, the "gay agenda" etc. etc.

Well spoken

 

[ukfan758]

I'll toss up this question to those who reject the idea that the south seceded because of slaves and non-white oppression:

If the South's secession was not about keeping their slaves and oppressing non-whites, then why were the Jim Crow Laws such a high priority for southern states to adopt during reconstruction once they rejoined the US when slavery was deemed illegal?