Created to represent the army fighting to preserve slavery.
Revived to represent the Klan fighting to preserve white supremacy.
Revived to represent the states fighting to preserve segregation.
Grotonian’s attempt to link it to the American flag would work if the American Revolution were fought because England was trying to abolish slavery in its colony, and if the flag languished until someone else was trying to end some sort of white supremacy.
Sure, terrible things have been done under the American flag: if you want to criticize the US, you know I’m your huckleberry. But the flag is not explicitly created to symbolize doing terrible things.
Undoubtedly, although I think some of them did use as a fig leaf the approach of the 100th anniversary of the war (which did wind up being celebrated with considerable hoopla).
So racism ended in the U.S. in what year? And all quoting an amendment proves is that the U.S. conceded a Constitutional right to own slaves prior to the amendment. By the by, slavery ended in the Confederacy before it ended in the U.S.
Oh, I didn’t realize that the metric used to gauge the wrongness of slavery was secession. I thought slavery was awful whether you were human chattel in a Confederate or US state. Ignorance fought.
Actually though, your argument makes a lot of sense. I guess I could handle being an American slave, but being a Confederate slave is an indignity no human should have to endure.
The South had it ended for them, by force, in a process that also ended the Confederacy itself.
The Union abolished slavery by the amendment process, as specified in the constitution.
Do you really hold war as a more admirable way of solving serious national issues than the democratic process? Eisenhower had to send in troops to Mississippi to integrate the colleges, but is that something you think is a good way of dealing with problems?
Excellent! Now you’re talking. Any of those things could be the basis for an appropriate symbol for the South and Southern pride (I might stay away from the military culture thing, though, unless it can be completely divorced from Civil War references). Jon Stewart actually suggested barbeque as a symbol of the South. So pick something and go with it, and stay away from a symbol that says racism and hatred to a lot of people. You’ve just proved that loving the South and being proud of the South doesn’t have to mean taking pride in slavery, oppression or rebellion. Now show that by not using the Confederate flag to express your pride.
I meant “you” as in Southerners, not you specifically. I’m trying to understand the perspective of Southerners, but I ask again, why is it important to use a symbol of a lost war, a symbol that means hatred and racism to millions of people, to represent barbecue, music, outdoorsmanship and hospitality? Especially when you (meaning Southerners) have repeatedly been told that other people find the symbol offensive. Insistence on maintaining that particular symbol makes it hard to believe that it’s all about sweet tea and bluegrass rather than white supremacy.
Good job giving a non-hysterical dissent, Spoke, while answering slightly hysterical opposition. We can be against the flag without assuming every use of it has been by knuckle dragging racists.
Cite? Where do you get MILLIONS of people? Did you do a poll?
Why in the world would you think that your opinion imposes some obligation on others to do anything? Who cares if you and your friends are offended? Go be offended. I find it offensive that you find it offensive. Now that you have been told that your behavior offends me, are you going to change it? Do you feel any obligation at all to stop offending me? What if MILLIONS of Southerners agree with me? Would that be a requisite number for you to stop offending us? So don’t expect others to be convinced by arguments you would never concede as valid.
It is hilarious to suggest that the flag of the slavers should represent such a “shared” heritage element (ha!) as, say, the blues, the music originated by poor sharecropping Southern blacks with one of its deep roots in the field hollers of the slaves.
Did you just invent a dumb argument, assign it to me, and argue against it? I do believe you did. I never said the metric used to gauge the wrongness of slavery was secession, or anything like that, or anything like anything else you rightly dismissed as stupid in your post.
This is a charmingly extreme example of form over function, of process over substance.
It’s not the process of telling someone that one is offended that should lead to change. It’s the substance of the offense. Is this really so foreign a concept to you?
So if you tell me that you’re offended by my drinking coffee in public, I’m not going to feel obligated to stop offending you. If you tell me that you’re offended by my wearing this t-shirt, I’ll ask you why. And if you give me a good reason, I’ll stop wearing it. (spoiler alert: I don’t actually own it, this is a hypothetical).
It’s absurd to try to evaluate offensiveness in general, treating someone offended by a longstanding symbol of brutal racist violence as equivalent to someone offended by Terry Pratchett books.
It’s not clear to me the intent is humourous or hyperbolic, though I’m admittedly not a Yankee. Was the phrase used in the 1960s when the battle flag was making a comeback and was it humourous or hyperbolic then?