I don’t know what “straw men” you are referring to. Those differences are not as significant as you believe them to be, and slavery in the antebellum South was not nearly as unique as you imagine it to be.
I take this as an admission that your mind is closed on this subject. I am currently working two jobs and do not have the time or energy to pursue this subject on either this or another thread.
If believing basic, indisputable facts means that my mind is closed, then I’m guilty as charged.
The facts are far from indisputable. Please do open your mind a little bit. I have no more time and energy for this. Goodbye.
If you can’t make a connection between General Lee and the battle flag then I’m wasting my time even typing this.
a)I agree and b) I never tried to make that point.
I’m sure to biased ears, it does.
Can’t make the connection between the flag and the war? Oooookaaaayyy…
I’m not trying to defend the cause of the war.
Again, not trying to rationalize the war. I’m defending a symbol that to me represents a)my great uncles plight, a man who was torn between leaving a country that he loved to defend his state which he loved more. I can totally empathize with that. b) the south. There is nothing racial about having southern pride and there are no other symbols (ok, grits) of the south. c) the hardships the south endured, both black and white during the war and after. Most will point and shout “The war only lasted 4 years!” but the time of reconstruction were hell in the south for many years afterwards.
Bottom line: If you (an all inclusive you) choose to view any of the confederate flags as racially devisive, along with some hate filled groups, go right ahead, you won’t hear a peep out of me. Don’t try to project your perceptions onto me.
Please understand that I am posting this link not because it in any way excuses the brutality of slavery in the South, but because I do think that people ought to be more aware of the history of slavery in the North.
This link is about slaves who were worked to death to build Manhattan:
I am puzzled. In an article about the New York City draft riots of 1863, I found this statement:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/317749.html
Was the Emancipation Proclamation only for slaves still held in the Confederacy???
Yes. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in those states which were in rebellion against the federal government. It didn’t free any slaves in states which had not seceded.
Zoe, are you familiar with the celebration of Juneteenth? It celebrates the day when the last slaves were freed in Confederate South. About two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Three million slaves were freed by Lincoln, leaving one million in bondage.
The 13th Amendment emancipated all slaves, and it was ratified the same year of Juneteenth–1865.
It appears to me that you are doing exactly that. The Confederate battle flag means nothing outside of the context of the Civil War. It is precisely symbolic of that war, and everything that those who went to war to defend the CSA represent, and among those things is the institution of slavery.
Lee’s plight has little to do with what the Confederate battle flag represents (for that matter, why not associate his plight to the Virginia state flag, since that would be far more representative of his willingness to defend his home state against a government he no longer agreed with, after all). His plight was probably echoed by many others, both in the South and in the North. No one really wanted four years of bloodshed, and I’m sure if they knew what they were in for ahead of time, many of those who took up arms would have been much less likely to do so.
And this is the crux of the matter: you have attached your “Southern Pride” to a symbol which is directly associated with a rebellion brought about in no small part as a consequence of the Southern “tradition” of slave ownership. That is why many view it as racist, and that this is not seen by many Southerners is why they themselves are often labelled as racists. They may well not be, but their insistance on associating themselves to a symbol of a war which was rooted in slavery does them no favors in that respect.
Your reading comprehension needs improvement. What I have said is that symbols mean different things to different people. I have said nothing about the legitimacy of any particular view of the confederate flag but only that a common view is that it’s a symbol of racism. Since displaying a racist symbol spreads racism the displayers of the flag are spreading racism. If not a racist symbol to some then all that means is that displaying the rebel flag isn’t encouraging racism with complete efficiency. It still supports the cancer of bigotry, just not directly to everyone.
** I have repeatedly addressed the point. I am not mistreating anyone. Scorn is the appropriate treatment for bigots or those who lend support.
This reads like a strawman for moral relativity. I don’t know how your personal philosophy works but in my world people can and do make moral judgements based on what they think is right and wrong. If you think what the “pinkists” are doing is wrong then I see nothing wrong with opposing them vocally. I think spreading racism is wrong and worth opposing. Don’t you?
Yes I see: you don’t understand how things work. Again your morals are your own but it is perfectly legal to deny someone a job for being a “damned pinkist”. Just like people make moral judgements prospective employers make value judgements on who they think is best for the job. Job discrimination only applies to certain protected classes of people like minorities, women, and the elderly. A conservative isn’t obligated to hire someone they know will donate money to fight for abortion or progressive taxation. Nor should they, in my estimation, be forced to support “pinkos”.
Where have I advocated hate? I have expressed scorn for racists and their accomplices but not hate. I don’t hate my mom’s boyfriend or my wife’s parents. I advocate letting them know that prejudice isn’t cool.
Symbols are potent because they can convey a large amount of information quickly and easily. They can have a viceral impact upon a person. That’s part of the reason we have flags in the first place. Racist symbols aid the cause as signs of brotherhood, lending encouragment to fellow racists and also of power, striking fear into opponents.
The accomplices of racists aren’t assholes because we disagree on the interpretation of a symbol. I call them assholes because they should well know that they are spreading a message of hate and yet continue to do so. If they wish to make a case and try to convince people that the symbol should be shorn of its negative connotations then fine, do so. But prominently displaying the rebel flag without context is not going to get that done. It’s bound to be misinterpreted. In my moral universe it isn’t just intent that counts. No one intends to get drunk and run over people.
Just like long-lost Dixie… sigh
Except, says I, that you’ve utterly failed to demonstrate that latter, which means that you are, in fact, guilty as charged.
You keep saying “yes, because you like this symbol which means one thing to you and a different thing to me, and what it means to me and a bunch of other people is bigotry, you must be supporting bigotry.” You are casting an entirely blind eye on the people who actually cause the problem: those who take a symbol to mean other than it does (i.e. nothing) and use it to justify their self-righteous condemnation.
My point, since it seems to have flown about 3 feet over your head, is that it’s okay to condemn someone for being a pinkist; it’s not okay to condemn someone for being a pinkist when that person isn’t, in fact, a pinkist. See how easy this is?
Look, if I were to stand up and start yelling at you for being a rapist, or a pedophile, or a serial killer, I would be morally in the wrong. I assume we’d both agree to that much. If we wouldn’t, then I’m wasting my time on you.
Now then, let us suppose that I have scientific proof that many people who wear pink are serial killers. Let us further suppose that I see you wearing pink. Is it suddenly okay for me to accost you and start yelling at you for your horrible murder sprees? Of course not; I am being an idiot who doesn’t understand the difference between “wears pink” and “is a serial killer.”
Contemplate this little scenario. And then explain to me why it’s okay to call everyone who wears pink either a serial killer or someone who supports serial killers.
Quite. More so, though, I think spreading bigotry in all its forms is wrong and worth opposing. Which, you see, is why I’m still posting in this thread. I thought I’d already made that quite abundantly clear.
And to deny them the right to wear pink?
Ah. My mistake. Apparently it’s okay to scorn people, to consider them racists or assholes without a shred of proof, but it’s not hate. My, how loving, tolerant, understanding, and shallow your position is.
But, as we have seen, inaccurately. Those who take a symbol to mean more than it does are those whose reason is shackled by prejudice.
I expect I’m wasting my time here, but… no they bloody well aren’t! It’s the people who are too stupid to understand that different symbols mean different things to different people who spread the hate; the symbol means nothing of the sort, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. You are assigning the blame to the wrong target. Your goals may be noble, but your methods are wrong.
A person may associate the flag with racism; he may do nothing more than without being a bigot.
Yes, and you’re blaming the wrong people for that. Which is silly. Blame the bigots instead.
The claim that “a racist sees the flag and sees a brother in racism” is immaterial; the racist sees the flag and sees a flag. He, in his bigotry and stupidity, takes that to mean a brother in racism. The claim that “someone sees the flag and sees an expression of racism” is just as bad; the bigot sees a flag and takes it to mean racism.
You pay only lip-service to the idea that different things mean different things to different people, and ignore the moral implications of that notion. That, after all, would be too inconvenient. No, because a symbol means different things to different people, it is okay for anyone to attach any meaning to any symbol (true), and therefore okay for them to assume that said meaning is correct (false, and trivially so). And in your eagerness to condemn people for using a symbol to which you have attached the negative meaning of bigotry, you ignore the bigotry your position requires us to accept. I refuse to accept that bigotry. Because, after all, bigotry is worth fighting.
When you are unable to properly summarize an argument I have repeated several times it begins to seem that you are being deliberately obtuse. There is no vague “must”. I have clearly laid out how the even a nonbigot sends out a message of bigotry with a ill-considered confederate flag.
What are you talking about? We both agree that the flag symbolizes many things. Many things. Opposite of nothing.
It’s your time to waste but I will agree with you, providing I am not a rapist, pedophile, or serial killer, which I hope I’m not. Quite different from calling someone an asshole for being an asshole, though.
This analogy doesn’t quite fit. I would say that hell yes it would be OK to accost someone for wearing pink if wearing pink aided and abetted serial killers. Lets say that the serial killers have to wear pink. Wouldn’t you bitch at assholes that wore the color and allowed serial killers to blend in easily?
Ahem. Does not hiring people who don’t shower deny them the right not to shower? Of course not. They have a choice: look presentable and get the job, or not. Same with the “pinkists”. It’s not discrimination. We have protected classes because people can’t stop being black or old or handicapped. We have decided that it’s not OK to deny someone a job for those things. “Pinkist” behavior has no such privilege.
I have offered my reasoning many times now. Disputing the reasonableness of it is one thing; pretending the argument doesn’t exist just to paint my position as shallow is quite another. Cheap shot.
How inaccurately? I accept the possibility that some people aren’t flying the flag as racist propaganda but how are we to know when presented only with the symbol and no context? And even given context, how can we know? People aren’t always ( or often, IME ) ready to admit their prejudice, perhaps not even to themselves. How are we to know we have interpreted it as intended?
Am I? I think not. Blame the miscomunication upon the receiver of the signal if you wish. It doesn’t change the fact that they still receive a message of hate and that the outcome is perfectly predictable and preventable by the cretin carelessly carrying the confederate flag.
Again you blame the receiver for the miscommunication but ignore the outcome: the racist is encouraged in his bigotry.
No, I have long ago accepted this and moved on. You, OTOH, pay close attention to the idea that things mean different things in order to blame the receiver for getting the wrong message. If you would open your eyes and look beyond your little morality play you would see the negative effects this behavior causes in the real world. And you accuse me of convenient thinking? Bah.
Oh? I see the assertion that a racist sees the flag and sees a brother in racism, and that a non-racist sees the flag and sees a racist oppressor. And, you see, that relies on allowing the bigotry of the flag viewer to go unchallenged; I understand what you’re saying, but I think it’s utterly irrelevant and is subsumed by my position. The gist of your position relies upon condemning bigotry out of one side of your mouth while condoning or at least accepting it out of the other.
It symbolizes many things; it means none of them, for each person can attach his or her meaning to the flag. The meaning is found in the viewer, not in the object.
I take this to mean that you agree that calling someone a bigot when they are not is wrong. Progress may be possible yet!
Since serial killers do not have to wear pink, I feel the point is moot. Similarly, racists do not have to fly the flag, nor even care about it, and flag-fliers need not be racist. For, you see, the flag no more means “racism” than the color pink means “serial killer.”
I must have missed where the color of one’s clothing was a job qualification. I must also have missed where my question about right to wear a color had anything to do with hiring practices. I also must have missed where quibbles over the legality of bigoted behavior became an important topic of debate, as separate from the morality of bigoted behavior.
Since it’s not clear: I think your argument is unreasonable, and hence the position derived from it is shallow.
Exactly. You are in no position to know, and hence no position to judge. Because people attach different meanings to the same symbol, one has no way of knowing what message is intended; therefore, no message can be conveyed accurately. The proper response to an unclear message is to seek clarification by some means. Not to tar the sender as a racist or an asshole.
No argument there. This, of course, means that we should point out their prejudice when we can, so that they might eliminate it. Rather than ignoring it.
The cretin, of course, is the person too stupid to realize that just because he or she attaches a meaning to a symbol is no reason to assume that others do the same. Were we to end their bigotry, we would have solved the problem of support for racism which you see and the problem of bigotry on the other side which I see and you don’t seem to care about. Tell me: how can my approach not be better than yours, solving more problems as it does?
They’re one and the same! A racist, too, is a receiver.
The receiver is free to get whatever message he or she pleases; said receiver is not free to assume that the message he or she got is the message intended, as you would have us believe. Perhaps I haven’t moved on and you have; this is because I still fight against bigotry.
Then show me a measurable harm caused, not by the bigotry of the receiver, but by the sending of the message. And explain how we can omit the negative effects your own position entails, tarring people as it does because they, in effect, refuse to be governed by the bigotry of others.
I know it was said that this particular hijack is being close, but dammit, I have to respond to this piece of wonderment:
!
Lonesomepolecat, where did you come up with this? I mean think about it: If the masters really thought of their slaves as being human, how could they rationalize treating black people as property, without the benefits of constitutional protection? It’s glaringly obvious in documents from those days that most white people–both Northerners and Southerners–considered black people as being on a different “plane” from whites. Blacks were deemed subhuman and Christianity was used as a tool to keep them complacent and peaceful.
The slavemasters were hardly concerned about the souls of their slaves. Not when the slaves were deemed soulless to being with.
You are ignorant and don’t know what your are talking about. I will not attempt to educate you.
Actually, I saw a picture in one of my history books of a bishop in a Latin American country holding out his hand, baptizing en masse arriving slaves on the ships, so at least in Catholic countries they were baptized. So were many of the Indians, wholesale. I’m not saying it wasn’t the most horrible hypocrisy and all, but at least slaves down there had souls.
If educate means proving me wrong, well then I don’t blame you for giving up that lost cause.
Mehitabel, Winthrop Jordan talks about the difference between Latin American and North American slaves in a book I read a long time ago (can’t remember title, dammit). The differences in religion seems to have played a big role.
In Latin America, slavery was not as permanent as it was in North America. There was little taboo associated with owner-slave relations (presumably because of the common white-Indian relations). Because there weren’t many white women and men generally want to pass on their wealth, offspring of slaves were treated as legimate heirs. Hence, the “escape hatch” was in effect in Latin America. If you looked white, that was good enough. No “one drop rule”. No need to justify the inherent inferiority of someone since they too can “rise” socially economically, through their children.
The Catholic church is largely responsible for this. Black slaves were converted to this religion but were allowed to hold on to African traditions. Catholic missionaries were sent there to get souls, not to keep slaves docile and resigned. Also, the puritanical imperative in Protestant religions (work hard, work hard, work hard and ye shall get into heaven) was not there. So slaves were not worked nearly as hard in Latin America as they were in the US, which means much of their humanity was left intact.
It’s not by coincidence that negro spirituals come from North America…the brand of Christianity fed to blacks in the South was there not to “get them to heaven”. It was forced on them to keep them in line. In order to justify their permanent enslavement, white Americans were inculcated to believe that blacks had no souls. This entrenched the taboo of miscegenation (among other things), which perpetuated the poignancy of the “one drop rule” and the myth of white supremacy.
See? Some Southerners will argue like the war was yesterday. But, they really don’t want to reenslave African Americans. Well, after about 10 beers they might think that’s funny. Sorry, alcohol does that to people, total Lack O’ Smarts-wise. What, you disagree? Don’t drink and drive.
My friend the “lawyer” (not really) / Confederate soldier (pretend*) is a harmless moderate with no animosity towards anyone. But, I could see him defending “his flag.” Put four vodkas in me and I might do my Foghorn Leghorn impression, if you’re lucky. 
The history of the entire world involved slavery until fairly recently. It still exists in parts of the world today, and people get arrested for what amounts to enslavement in the developed world. If they get caught, of course.
Making these hairline distinctions between the North and South a century and a half after the fact just prove the fact that nothing is debated like civil war is debated. This is a rule that crosses international boundaries, IMO.
The amazing thing is how long it’s debated.
*Retired. Reenactors have busy schedules and must train constantly. Who knew?
Look, the flag has been used by institutions the advance the cause of beating back civil rights for African Americans. From its re-emergence over statehouses in the 50’s, to its continual use by hate groups such as the KKK, it has actively been used as a symbol of hate.
You want to reclaim it? Make it mean Southern pride in brotherhood and family? Then you need to actively take it back. When the flag is seen as a banner over civil rights marches instead of the tired old ‘states’ rights’ circus, maybe you’ll have a point. But flying it off your porch, sticking it to your bumper, and screen-printing it on a t-shirt does nothing but reinforce it as a symbol of hate. Don’t claim that you’re ‘reclaiming it’ by wearing it, being white, and not oppressing people.