StrangeSox

Don't remember if it was posted already, but the Republican House Leader in Mississippi is calling for their state flag, which contains the confederate flag, to be redesigned.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 10:25 AM) Thank you for pointing this out. It seems to me that a lot of people view any person living in the south before/during the Civil War as a slave owner...and I think it gets lost/forgotten that MOST people didn't own slaves, but lived on small prairie farms trying to get by. Now, with that in mind, I'd like to add to this that MOST of the people that fought for the south in the Civil War did NOT do so because they owned or wanted to own slaves, but because it's where they happened to live and didn't have a choice. This pertains to why I don't view what has become the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism, so much as a hijacked symbol of racism, BECAUSE a lot of the people that died beneath that flag did so because they were caught in a bad situation and forced to fight a war they didn't have any stake in, other than having the misfortune of living there. For those people that look at that flag, they see it as a symbol of their ancestors death...and I think, by and large, they're the majority, NOT the racist minority that carries that flag like a symbol of their superiority. A lot of Germans were forced to fight in WWII who may not have totally bought into Nazi ideology. That doesn't change what the Nazis were all about or what their symbols represent. It's the same with the Confederacy. What some poor farmer who fought for the Confederacy believed doesn't change why the Confederacy existed and what its goals were. If their ancestors died fighting for the Confederacy, they died fighting for an unquestionably evil cause. You can't separate what the Confederacy stood for and what it did and what former Confederates who waged racial terrorism in the following decades (NBF for example) carried on using those symbols for, or why there was a sudden resurgence of the symbols across the South during the 20th century civil rights struggles. That's just turning a blind eye to history.

You do not need to go to full-blown re-enslavement for it to be a symbol of white supremacy. I have to believe that an overwhelming majority of people who proudly display or support displaying the confederate flag hold some pretty racist beliefs.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 10:10 AM) "well, they just wanted freedom to govern themselves' Usually when people talk about what "The South" wanted to do, they're talking about a minority comprised of wealthy slaveowners who controlled their state and local governments. But it's worth pointing out that South Carolina's population was just over 40% black in 1860. Combine that with a minority of whites who did not favor slavery and you're not even looking at a majority of people in South Carolina wanting this.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:52 AM) They saw the writing on the wall, especially once Lincoln was elected. A lot of that was attempted northern compromise but I don't think anyone truly believed it would last. It wasn't going to last forever, but there was no immediate (meaning within a decade) future wherein slavery would be abolished. The collective value of owned slaves, $3.5B, was the single most valuable asset in the country. The South threw a hissy fit and engaged in treason in the defense of slavery when they didn't win an election. They weren't about the rights of anyone other than slave-owning southern aristocrats. Pointing to pretty major issues directly on the topic of slavery where they betrayed their supposed deep interest in "states rights" really does undercut the notion that they gave two s***s about "states rights." They were pro-federalist when it was advantageous and the whole "states rights" argument didn't even surface until years after the start of the war.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:44 AM) To clear this up, I wasn't speaking specifically of the confederate flag being hijacked...I was simply pointing out that symbols throughout history, both good and evil, have been and can be hijacked. If Hitler can hijack a good symbol and make it evil, why can't we hijack an evil symbol and make it good? The entire point of my post was that we don't allow the moron minority to dictate what means what to the majority. Only morons care what the confederacy stood for, but a lot of people today do NOT feel that way about that symbol. To them, it represents that a person in their family died, or holds a historic significance of what our country has emerged from. Condemning the past simply means forgetting the past. I don't think we should forget what we've come from. The majority has said throughout its existence that the flag stands for white supremacy. It's why South Carolina decided to proudly fly it again during the Civil Rights movement. Pretending that this symbol doesn't have this horrible history or that it can somehow be cleansed of it is forgetting the past and where we've come from.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:38 AM) But the entire basis for this was they had laws expressly allowing slavery, whereas the north did not, and the federal government (and northern states) wanted them to first stop spreading it into new territories, and second to abolish it in the southern states. The radical Republicans who favored abolition were not a powerful coalition in 1861. Hell, even after four years of war and with a Northern-dominated Congress, it still wasn't easy to pass the 13th Amendment. The slave-holding South was no longer such a dominant powerhouse in the federal government, but the federal government was nowhere near abolition and slavery had already been allowed to expand to some territories. When it came to Kansas, the pro-slavery states attempted to rig the game to expand slavery and then quickly turned to violence against anti-slavery forces. They absolutely did not. The southern states pushed hard for fugitive slave laws and the central holding of Dredd Scott which trampled all over states' rights. It wasn't about merely continuing slavery but expanding it and keeping their stranglehold on the federal government.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:31 AM) That's because you are viewing it in a historical perspective. The reason it's written that it wasn't known as a symbol of the confederacy until AFTER the war, was because at that time, nobody would have seen that battle flag unless they were -- you know -- in battle. So, when you said it made no sense, I'm merely pointing out that it makes perfect sense. First a minor pedantic quibble, civilians who were in the path of the fighting certainly would have seen the flag as well. I'd be surprised if Lee's army's flag wasn't printed in Confederate newspapers celebrating his victory as well. Second, you're now trying to argue a different point. You were earlier trying to claim that this flag was "hijacked" similarly to how the swastika has been perverted into a symbol of hate. Showing that the flag in question was not the most widely known flag of the Confederacy or that it was not the state flag but a battle flag does not establish that, however. The flag is and always has been associated with white supremacy. The symbol didn't exist before, it had no other meaning from which it was hijacked. This would be like arguing that the Waffen SS symbol was "hijacked" because it wasn't the official Nazi flag and wasn't the most well-known symbol during their rise to power. It's wrong at its core and it's not relevant. So, no, your argument still makes no sense. It's a confederate flag, and it's always stood for what the confederacy stood for.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:27 AM) You're playing semantics, so I'll do the same. It makes perfect sense that it wasn't attributed to them until after the war ended because most of the people never would have seen that flag. Opposing military may have, but regular people wouldn't have. You know what confederate flag the regular people of the south would have seen? That's right, Johnny!!! THE ACTUAL OFFICIAL FLAG OF THE CONFEDERACY! There's no semantics game to be played. The flag in question is and always has been associated with the Confederacy. It didn't exist before the Confederacy and was created by Confederates for a Confederate army that enslaved as many free blacks as they could. There is no other benign history from which it was "hijacked." It is not like the swastika. It was never used by other cultures in other places or times for any other reason.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:23 AM) but a part of that too was "you can't tell us what to do." No, just no. There are so many primary source documents where the causes are made excruciatingly clear by all sides, and "states rights" never enters in to it (an easy counterpoint is the Confederate constitution itself which forbid member states from ever outlawing slavery). It was because they saw their political power waning if they could not force slavery into new territories (Bloody Kansas) and they wanted to establish a pan-American empire of slavery (see various quotes in the piece I linked earlier this morning).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:21 AM) I pretty clearly said it became associated with the confederacy AFTER the war ended, because up until that point the confederacy had an official flag -- and that wasn't it. I know you said that, and it makes no sense whatsoever. The flag in question was the flag of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. It was flown by a Confederate army in battles for the Confederacy and in the name of the Confederacy. It was never not associated with the Confederacy. It was always a symbol of treason in the name of slavery and white supremacy. It has no other history.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:14 AM) pro-state's rights. That's what they've been for the last 150 years and now it's more about principle than politics for people down there. For very specific "states rights," generally speaking, and even then only selectively. Please do not buy into the garbage that anything about the civil war or the ensuing 100 years of apartheid was about a principled stand for "states rights."

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:11 AM) This is half true. Yes, it was a battle flag of Lee's army. No, it wasn't always associated with the confederacy, as pointed out in the article I linked, it didn't come to known as such until AFTER the war was over. No, it was NEVER an official flag of the confederacy. People are absolutely free to attribute it to the confederacy, but it was never an official flag of theirs. Please explain how the battle flag of the main and most famous army of the Confederacy was ever not associated with the Confederacy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 04:53 PM) In what world do people who don't get that the Confederate flag is racist, actually exit? If they don't get it, they are the type of people who don't want to get it. welp, you asked

The flag was the flag of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. It's always been associated with the Confederacy. This is the same army that deliberately enslaved as many free northern blacks as they could. It's a Confederate flag and chosen by racists in the years following the Civil War for what it's always represented, which is white supremacy.

The problem with that is that the confederate flag wasn't "hijacked." It is and has always been about white supremacy. The flag became such a central topic because it was still flying at full mast during the initial Haley press conference after the attack. If they didn't have the 2/3's majority-to-lower-it law, it probably doesn't even become much of a topic of discussion.

I do not believe in the Confederate apologia (it was about states rights! etc.). I do believe that some who do believe that may have a genuine change of heart if there's a forceful enough event.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 04:53 PM) In what world do people who don't get that the Confederate flag is racist, actually exit? If they don't get it, they are the type of people who don't want to get it. "Heritage not hate," blinders caused by political or cultural affiliation. I think this may genuinely have been an eye-opening event for some people who maybe didn't want to get it before and can't help but get it now. Again, at the very least, we will hopefully no longer have South Carolina proudly flying a racist symbol.

Good move by Nikki Haley, Republican Governor of SC: South Carolina governor calls for Confederate flag's removal

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 04:41 PM) To the non-racists it sends a message. To the racists it tells them that the Civil War isn't over yet, as the same things are still happening. Right, so you'll no longer have non-racists who may genuinely display the flag or support the state displaying the flag out of misplaced pride or heritage because they just didn't understand what the symbol really meant to many of their fellow Americans before. If it, like the Nazi swastika, becomes the symbol solely of white supremacists, well, at least they're easier to spot now and we don't have state governments flying the same flag.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 04:35 PM) How many influencial non-Muslim groups are there in Iran? Alpha referred to a Muslim here being influenced into anti-gay ideas because of actions of the Iranian government. Leaving aside the distinction between various Muslim sects in the first place, I was just pointing out that his "different because government/religion combo" doesn't make sense in the specific example he picked. There's anti-gay Christian sentiment without there being the equivalent of an Evangelical Iran or Saudi Arabia.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 04:38 PM) worship a pedophile lol jesus christ edit: I don't know why you think pointing out your argument is flawed is somehow an endorsement of Iran or of Islamic theocratic states, but it isn't.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 04:29 PM) If the last 150 years haven't done that, why would taking down the confederate flag? For about 100 years after the slaveholders' insurrection/Civil War, the "Lost Cause" historiography held throughout pretty much the entire country. It was portrayed as a gentleman's tragic fight over states rights and tariffs (and still largely is in many places). It's only been in the last several decades that people have rightly recognized what the primary sources make abundantly clear, which is that slavery was the central cause of the war and that white supremacy was the driving force behind the resistance to Reconstruction and the following century of oppression. The traitors' flag didn't even fly at the state capitol until 1961. If the state of South Carolina is willing to recognize what that flag truly means, that sends a message. More and more people are willing to reject the idea that the Confederacy wasn't primarily/solely about the preservation and extension of slavery and that this flag has been used in the name of white supremacist ideology from the start.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 04:23 PM) The public executions of gays for being gay? There is that push by ultra-right Christians for the death penalty in Uganda, but I was trying to point out that it doesn't make sense to assume that Muslim anti-gay animus (that was alpha's chosen example) must be coming from Muslim governmental actions when there's plenty of other anti-gay animus in non-Muslim groups. A religious state clearly isn't a necessary condition for that sort of attitude to spread.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 04:17 PM) The difference being freedom of speech here would actually prevent the banning of it. Considering that Nazi groups still operate in Germany, I think it is clear that banning a flag doesn't change racism. Well, right, which is why I don't think anyone is calling for the flag to be banned. Calling for the state not to display and endorse it isn't the same as calling for a ban. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, and I've made that clear a few times previously in this thread. It's a symbol of hatred that is currently embraced by a state government, and people rightly want that to end. That will not eliminate white supremacist and racist thought, but it's at least a clear acknowledgement that that is what that symbol and the confederacy stood for. It's an incremental step in the right direction. Eh, maybe. Those sorts of groups are already mired in their "take back our country from those people" and perceived victimization. You could make the same argument about any action that that sort of person would take affront to. At the very least, if it becomes a clear and explicit marker to anyone and everyone of racist ideology, that's a positive.