The only person that can answer this is the OP as he is the one that started this in GD.
Those of us who do not agree with the above should ignore such statements, I presume.
And of course the opinion that they are misguided is that of the poster, masquerading as fact.
I have no problem with that. As I said, two state flags were changed to include the confederate flag in reaction to the Civil Rights movement. There is a difference in that and saying that the confederate flag was not prominently used in everyday life prior to the civil rights movement.
Very good point, even despite the runaway sentence. I would add that the stars and bars flew over slavery in many northern states, prior to 1804. However, this is unfair since it happened so far back in history. :wally
As I noted much earlier in this thread, I would like someone to explain to me why it was wrong to work a 10-year-old black kid to death in a sugar cane field but somehow not as bad to work a 10-year-old white kid to death in a coal mine. If you imagine that the North was somehow morally superior tothe South, you are sadly mistaken.
Mind you, I happen to know exactly WHICH flag is the Stars and Bars, and it is not the Southern Cross flag that the monumentally ignorant like to call the “Stars and Bars”.
So, can you even prove the existence of the Stars and Bars flag as early as 1804?
I had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, and I say the Confederate flag (whether the Stars and Bars, or the St.-Andrew’s-Cross battle flag) represents nothing about our heritage that we should honor. Learn from, but not honor. Honor the brave men who fought under that flag, certainly, but do not honor what it represented – slavery and secession.
You want a real Southern hero? Look to Martin Luther King, Jr.! He did more for the South, and more for the white South, than any Southerner in our history – more than Washington, more than Jefferson, and certainly more than John C. Calhoun or Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee! Don’t you see? Slavery and racism were the things that were holding us back! In the antebellum period, industry thrived in the North and languished in the South – partly because geographic conditions were better for it up north, but also because the Southern slave-agrarian economic system tended to freeze out industrial development and repel would-be immigrants. And Jim Crow was just the same wine in a new bottle. It was all bound up with the decadent, impoverished, primitive, half-mad, Haunted South that Faulkner wrote about. The Jim Crow South was a region in which no industrialist wanted to invest, unless they needed really cheap labor (white and black). But since the end of Jim Crow, the Southern economy has boomed! We’ve been the fastest-growing region of the country ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1965! Does anybody seriously believe the Southern economic revolution could have happened, if the Southern civil-rights revolution had not happened first? Wherever we have any kind of monument commemorating “Southern heroes,” King’s statue should be added! He deserves the credit! (That is, as much as any one leader can be credited for the work of a mass movement.)
That’s just it, BrainGlutton, the war is so over that it’s absurd. The South is attracting factories with tax incentives not inching back towards slavery. Since I didn’t live back then, thanks for burning Atlanta and finally ending that meatgrinder of a war.
Let me put it this way: Would a resonable person associate the Confederate flag with the Confederate cause? And would a reasonable person associate the Confederate cause with perpetuating slavery?
Sorry, it was getting late. The following is a correction to my last post:
. I would add that the stars andstripes flew over slavery in many northern states, prior to 1804.**
And who has said that they honored slavery and secession? It is this connection that I (and I believe some others) are objecting to. I do not have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, since they started out in Lancaster, PA in the 1700’s and mirgrated to Dayton, Ohio. So my sentiments about the Stars and Bars hasn’t got a dang thing to do with slavery and/or secession. It has to do with a pride in the southern states and its people (which today includes many yankees like myself).
You forgot ole Abe. At least you give partial credit to the fact that geography played a role. The one thing you overlook is the cotton gin. Before Eli Whitney invented the gin, slavery was dying out even in the south. There weren’t any slaves in states like Alabama and Mississippi, before the invention of the gin.
It seems like a lot of people think that there were slave owners before there was a need for their labor. The landowners did not go out and find cotton to give the slaves something to do. The textile mills were in New England and England for a reason, one of which was geography, but not because the southern agrarian economy kept them from coming south.
Baloney. A friend of mine in high school moved to Atlanta because his dad worked for the big Chevrolet plant there. I had a summer job with Kraft. The first plant in Tupelo was Rockwell back in the 1940’s. Yes they came to the south because of cheap labor and to get away from the unions. All these plants moved before we knew who Martin Luther King was or what he would do. Jim Crow was alive and fairly healthy and those big companies couldn’t have cared less. Do the corporations today that are moving to China care? One of the biggest factors was a thing called air conditioning.
Not to take away from what Martin Luther King did, but he didn’t invent the civil rights movement. He happened to be the right man at the right time. Part of this was because of the Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education. Part had to do with those new plants, because they didn’t care about Jim Crow and so hired blacks as well as whites. A lot of it had to do with the fact that Jim Crow was no longer viable. What was needed was someone to stand up and Martin Luther King was not afraid to answer the call.
Monuments are not in vogue these days, but every town and city I know of in the south has a main street named after Martin Luther King. Or to put it another way:
[ul] [sup]I think you are whistling Dixie.[/sup][/ul]
Oh yeah, I killed them all with what I said. Tell me what I can say to bring them back. :rolleyes: [sup]Abra-Ka-Dabra??[/sup]
What Confederate cause? You mean the one back in 1860? Back then, yes it was associated with slavery. Do you think we still have slaves hidden somewhere or that there is a danger of Mississippi or Georgia seceding? I own a sword, do you therefore think I’m frustrated by the fact there are no dragons to slay? [sub]Sorry, I got carried away there.[/sub] The simple answer is NO, I don’t think it is reasonable.
Interesting: the “heroes test.” I did a quick search. The only “official heroes” of the State of Florida I could find are these guys.
Once again, all roads lead back to the Dukes of Hazzard. It’s big block rumble that spawned this little Civil War. Believe it or not, that is not – exactly – what the South is like.
My main connection to the “Stars and Bars” is these threads. Like most Florida Crackers I’m a Yankee transplant by descent. Carpetbagger progeny. :o They only dragged their carpet,eh,bags here in this century. I’m not worried about any repercussions from the real secsssionists. Just because you can’t find any doesn’t mean they aren’t out there, in numbers, just looking for a reason to vote for Howard Dean.
Pish! Let me spoonfeed you the bitter medicine then. Because to lots of people the confederate flag is a racist symbol it is reasonable to assume that if they display it without context where lots of people can see it then lots of people will read it as an expression of white power. If they are cool with spreading hate then hell yes I am cool with smearing them! They, and you, should know better.
That’s what I don’t understand at all. I can understand why someone might feel innocuous pride in the Confederate flag, but I don’t understand people who don’t think it’s reasonable why I and others see it as offensive. I see this as purposeful insensitivity, an unwillingness to let go of defensiveness and accept some basic truths.
There is no current Confederacy. Use of this word harkens back to the Civil War, when it existed as an entity. Whether it was fighting for slavery or for state’s rights or simple defense, the Confederacy was an enemy of the country which we belong to today. And as a governing unit, the thing was dissolved a long time ago. Now those states belong to the Union.
The Confederacy was in support of slavery and against full rights for colored people. It was not the Confederacy that freed its slaves, and there is no reason to believe it would have without the intercession of the Union.
These things cannot be denied: The Stars and Stripes were routinely marched out during anti-integregation protests during the 50s. The imagery is still crisp in many Americans’ minds, with pictures of people holding flags and banners of this symbol as they hurl racial slurs in the faces of young people going to school. Why was this symbol chosen if it’s not “reasonable” to associate it with white supremacy?
The KKK and other hate groups have annexed the symbol. Why would they have appropriated this symbol if it isn’t “reasonable” to assume it represents white supremacy?
If people want a flag that represents the South, what’s wrong with making another? Why stick with something that’s so sullied by its past and its present? It’s not sacred. Better yet, why make a big deal when people find it offensive? I’m not saying you are, kniz, but it sure seems like the most vehement on the pro-flag side refuse to see why there’s good cause to be offended. To be sure, there are quite a few on the “anti” side who are not understanding either, but from my experiences as a southerner living in the North, it seems like there are more of the former than the latter. Why is that?
I mean, there are no real Nazis living today and not all Nazis were racist (like Oscar Schindler), but no one would deny that the swatiska is offensive. I don’t know why people can’t see how the Confederate flag and the swatiska are members of the same genus. If someone could list the meaningful differences between the two, that might be helpful for the discussion.
Your point, as near as I can make out, is as follows: [ol][li]Lots of people are morons.[/li][li]Being morons, lots of people are prejudiced, and will make hasty judgments about people who fly the Confederate flag.[/li][li]Therefore, we can conclude that people who fly the Confederate flag are racists or assholes. Because [/li][li]after all, prejudice is okay if lots of people are prejudiced.[/li][/ol]
Needless to say, I categorically reject such an argument as morally bankrupt drivel. In my view, prejudice is wrong, period. You, apparently, disagree.
If I’m following the debate properly some posters feel it’s unfair that confed flag boosters get automatically labeled as racists. Personally, I think that’s a load of fucking horseshit. Taking into account the fact that the confeds were supporters of slavery, in fact gave their lives to defend it, among other principles, I think it’s safe to say anyone who displays their banner is unambiguous in their condonation of those inhuman fucks of yore.
Second, you can’t just pick and choose which aspects of a symbol you want it to represent. You get the whole thing part and parcel. How the hell am I expected to distinguish between the person that displays the flag to express their non-racist pride and the one that is a grand high wizard on the weekends? It’s impossible. You’ll have to pardon me if my only option is to assume anyone that waves that flag might be a racist, and a proud one at that.
It’s beyond freaking absurd. You’re waving the flag of slavery, and getting pissed at people for bringing it up. I’m sorry, but that flag is now and forever tainted, and all the pissing and moaning in the world won’t change that. Either give it up and move on, or deal with the so-called prejudices you claim to be facing. Frankly, I don’t think anyone is spilling any tears over your plight.
monstro, no, I don’t. Because I have insufficient evidence to make that judgment. I am uncomfortable, I wouldn’t choose to associate with that person, but I wouldn’t call him a racist. Because I just don’t know.
[sup]I think you are whistling Dixie.[/sup][/ul]