paragraph 1: Whether or not our position is just and reasonable, we will not change it because that might lead to accepting other changes later.
paragraph 2: Other things that hae been asked of us that we don’t like.
paragraph 3: If we express pride in our heritage people assume we are proud of all aspets of our heritage. We sometimes get stereotyped and that’s unfair.
paragraph 4: I don’t like your view of history, and my forefather’s suffered horribly for their beliefs. We suffered, and suffer, more than any other part of the country.
paragraph 5: The North engaged, and continues to engage, in a campaign to destroy the image of the south in an attempt to “justify” past and present transgressions.
paragraph 6: We are trying to preserve our heritage and it just isn’t fair that people keep bringing up the bad parets instead of letting us bring up only the good parts.
paragraph 7: Waaah! Stop criticizing us!
second post: same as the first.
IN RESPONSE:
If you cannot justify your position based upon the facts of the issue at hand, then rethink your position. Refusing to act because you might be asked to act again later is the response of a coward or a beuraucrat.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Welcome to the real world. If you cheer a banner that has repressive associations to some people, those people are going to judge you accordingly. Perhaps if the folks who are most vocal in expressing Southern pride were equally vocal in expressing contrition for the darker side of their history the judgment would be less swift and sure, but it would still come. BTW, you mayt have been too focused on the provincial chip on your shoulder to notice it, but the same thing happens to every other nation/culture in the world. Expressions of patriotism are very often met with criticisms based upon episodes from history. Have you been paying attention to European politics recently?
4a) I will defend my view of history, as I’m sure you will defend yours. Mine acknowledges moral ambiguity on both sides of the conflict. Does yours?
4b) When you say Southernes have suffered and continue to suffer in ways the rest of the country did and does not, I assume you are speaking of black Southerners, right?
The North did not need to justify the entry into the war – the South fired first. It requires no distortion of history to discover racism and slavery in the history of the South. It also requires no distortion to find the same things in the history of the North. Neither case represents the full story. It would require a distortion of history to find evidence for the South willingly abandoning the institutions of slavery and the entrenched support of racial segregation.
If you want to preserve your heritage, then you get the bad with the good. If you don’t like that, find some way to move beyond it. Do you think flying the Battle Flag from teh statehouse is the best way to do that?
Not until you stop doing things I disagree with.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Regardless of the history or meaning of the Confederate flag, it is for the people of the state in question to effect change. If this can be brought about in a political context, so be it. If not, quit bitching and do business elswhere.
I am sick of people taking some modern event (the flag was raised in 1962) and through their lack of knowledge ranting that we are trying to destroy a cherished ancient tradition or heritage.
If the action was a bunch of white bigots making a statement against desegragation, then it becomes obvious: take the damn thing down.
Please stop equating southern pride with racism. In my experience, southerners are extremely generous and kind until you try to tell them what to do.
Monty, I don’t personally know any Arab members of the Knesset, but I’m certain that they would consider themselves to be Palestinians, representing the Palestinian population in Israel. Just because they’re in the Knesset doesn’t mean they feel that they belong to the State of Israel. That might sound strange to Americans, but this isn’t America.
Baruch haShem, there will soon be a Palestinian state. Without double-checking, I believe that was my original sentence. Sheesh.
~Harborina
“This is my sandbox. I’m not allowed to go in the deep end. That’s where I saw the leprechauns.”
Concerning your assertion that they don’t consider themselves citizens of Israel: Interesting, but fallacious as the 2nd link above has the following statement:
Therefore your certaintly of those members listed below is merely a WAG and has no basis in fact as upon assuming their office, they swore allegiance to Israel. Such an oath obviously doesn’t negate the fact that they are representing the people who elected them. Israel is a Parliamentary government and thus has certain differences from our Congressional model.
Here’s a “short-list” of some Arab members of the 15th Knesset:
UNITED ARAB LIST (5)
Abd el-Malek Dahamsha
Taleb a-Sana’a
Hashem Mahmeed
Tewfik Khatib
Muhammad Kena’an
DEMOCRATIC FRONT FOR PEACE AND EQUALITY - HADASH (3) {Note from Monty: I won’t swear that these three are all Arabs.}
Mohammed Baraka
Issam Mahoul
Tamar Gozansky
Isn’t that merely an opinion? Last I heard, Arafat was threatening to unilateraly declare such but so far has been quite happy to discuss things with the legitimate government of the area. Said government, you might note, established the Palestinian Legislature and the Palestinian Police force.
BTW: there are Muslim Arab citizens of Israel who can, and have, served in the Israeli Defense Forces with honour. Not all Arabs and not all Muslim Arabs are adverse to Israel’s existence.
So what do we Christians do about the Christian churches which use the Magen David in their worship and decorations. St. John’s Episcopal Church (“The Church of the Presidents”) in Washington DC has the Magen David on its altar rails.
Yes, Lib; I realize that your OP was a hypothetical but it failed to address this very question.
Geez, what’s with the attack, Monty? Of course my statement that there will soon be a Palestinian state was an opinion (and a prayer). I never thought anyone would interpret it otherwise.
And I am not making a WAG that Palestinians don’t consider themselves Israelis. I lived in Arab East Jerusalem for nine months and I have discussed this many times with actual Palestinians and actual Israelis. I don’t think that they are all opposed to the existence of the state of Israel (in fact, most are not), but there are several things that really create the essence of the Israeli identity: speaking Hebrew, being Jewish, serving in the army, etc. Now, most Palestinians speak Hebrew, and you say Arabs serve in the army (although I have a hard time believing this, since Israeli soldiers have told me straight out that Arabs can’t serve in the army), and although I have heard of Palestinians converting to Judaism, this is very rare. Therefore, they do not fit into the mold of Israelis. This is an accepted facet of life in Israel. I’m not going to say that this doesn’t create a rift in the national society, because it does. But Israel has about a thousand rifts in national society (secular vs. religious, zionist vs. antizionist, settler vs. left-winger, knitted kipa vs. black kipa, Ashkenazim vs. Sephardim, Bibinikim vs. Baraknikim…I could go on forever) and that is only one. I don’t want to sound like I’m saying that because I’ve lived in Israel, I automatically know all about every problem and what everyone is thinking there, because that’s not true. But I have lived in Israel, and I believe that I understand the society better than someone who hasn’t. You’re welcome to disagree with me, but I can tell you now that no matter how many websites you find that prove that all MKs swear allegience to Israel, you will never prove to me that Palestinians consider themselves to be real and true Israelis, protected under the laws of the nation and fully accepted members of the society.
By the way, this is completely off topic, and I’m sorry for hijacking the thread. So, uh, take the flag down! Yeah! Wait, no, have the voters of South Carolina choose. Yeah.
::having visions of the Palestinian flag flying over the SC statehouse:: I gotta go to bed.
~Harborina
“This is my sandbox. I’m not allowed to go in the deep end. That’s where I saw the leprechauns.”
I’ve become convinced that any topic with more than one page of posts will eventually encompass:
South Carolina’s flag issue/Civil War causes,
Could Germany have invaded the US,
X-Files type stuff (aliens, conspiracies)
I’m thinking the board would be a lot easier to administer if we just dumped everything into one big folder. (j/k)
[returning to OP]
Israel is a different country, so we’re pretty much screwed. But, I see where you’re going. Let me just say that I see an interesting paradox in the US; we can’t satisfy the majority rights if we respect minority rights. However, the US is based on a democratic (majority rule) system. That’s the basic problem with how the US is set up–we’re guaranteed all these individual rights, but they can be taken away by a ‘majority’ of people we might never meet. For every group of folks saying ‘We’re going to change it, because we voted on it’, there’s going to be a smaller group saying ‘What about my rights’? If we swing too far one way, you get fascism, the other way, anarchy.
If the NAACP sees the flag as a threat, ok, let’s do something about it. However, I think that if the wishes of the NAACP are followed, they should be prepared to accept the thoughts and ideas of a minority group of Southerners who believe that some sort of memorial would be appropriate. Giving the NAACP carte blanche to eradicate any memorials/statues/battlefields that offend them smacks of PC-fascism to me (and I’ll be damned if they try to remove the C.S.A. plaque from great-grandpappy’s gravesite).
I don’t see where 10% (my guesstimate of hardcore NAACP supporters) of a state’s population is more important than another 10% (my guesstimate of hardcore Confederate-supporters), just because the first group has an acronym and CNN coverage. Every (wo)man created equal, right? Isn’t that what the NAACP is all about, anyway?
-sb
They say the Lord loves drunks, fools and little children.
Two out of three ain’t bad.
Kyla: Sorry you consider it an attack; however, what you posted was not obviously an opinion as it was written. Regardless of your residence there and regardless of with whom you spoke, I asked about the MK (Members of Knesset) not the residents. The site I posted above was from the Israeli government. Also, regardless of your reluctance to accept the fact that some Muslim Arabs serve in the IDF and regardless of what someone “on the street” so to speak says, some Muslim Arabs do serve in the IDF. (I’ll do some more research and get a link soon, or even a quote from the Consulate on Monday). An easy example of proving that your average joe isn’t all that up on the “niceties” of military law is the oft-quoted misconception in the United States that we members of the military are governemnt property.
Of course you have a right to your opinion, but I also have a right to post the actual facts regarding those. Just as you do if I haul off and say something which is easily disproved.
Regarding the flag issue: “Flags of the World” http://www.fotw.com (which sometimes doesn’t even load, drat!) has a lot of good info on it.
i know i’m a whole page late, but the rackensack/spoke exchange almost picked up on something that occurred to me early on: usage of the rebel flag by society’s rebels-- old-fashioned biker gang insignia, &c.-- is something i’m quite used to seeing. i suppose that calling it the rebel flag is still most appropriate due to the reaction one may get if one raises it. of course, one could note that biker gangs also favor swastikas (but more often the iron cross), but i have a suspicion that those go back to the actual origins of motorcycle clubs: post WWII veterans still enjoying their freedom and youth, and displaying their captured spoils of war-- insignia and medals taken from their captured or killed wearers.
anyhow, the idea that black people would pick up on the rebel symbolism, tailor it, or in some other way appropriate it seems a natural to me, in light of the fact that some black people feel that way about the word,“nigger.”
and i know a lot has been said about the circumstances leading up to the civil war, but so far no one except perhaps scylla has made the analogy of colonialism: economically and militarily, the union treated the south as a colony-- before, during and after the war. recall what you have learned about the internalization of oppression among the colonized, and you understand both how blacks can feel they must live up to a false white standard of beauty and how southerners, even now, can feel that they must live up to a false northern standard of speech. most of the war was fought on southern land, and that is why the impression of loss is deeper in the south-- and then of course there’s reconstruction, which one could liken to the treaty of versailles after WWI-- it may not have directly caused nazism, but it didn’t help-- jim crow was an outcome of reconstruction which i know was not intended by the union, but there could have been some better planning (esp. if if it was so damn well-known that the war was about slavery :rolleyes: )
the hog squeal of the universe is coming from my modem!
I read a good article defending the Confederate flag. The idea went something like this:
The flag has history, so let’s recap.
In the mid 1800’s there was a rivalry between two economic systems, North and South. The Republican’s won (With 39% of the vote…the smallest in history to win a presidency). Then six states rather foolishly decided to succeed, instead of waiting for the next election. Instead of talking this whole thing out the South again rather foolishly attacked Fort Sumter (no casualties) and the North screamed bloody murder. By declaring war on “the South” It threw in the southern border states (Virginia, Tenn. etc.) and we had a fairly even match and bloodshed ensued, something like 620,000 American’s died. Only about 2% of southerners had slaves, and I doubt the others were fighting for their right to keep them. The South was fighting because it was invaded.
This is just what I read…I never said I believe it all or agree. But a final thought, if my relatives fought bravely for a land that was invaded I’d be inclined to be proud, no matter what nasty institution was being protected.
Spiritus Mundi, you seem to think the Civil War was a moral crusade. That don’t agree with the facts. In 1860 I think you would have been hard pressed to find a white man (North or South) that would die for a black man. You’d have to wait another 100 year’s before the States decided by majority that a black man was equal to a white man, much less worth dying for. This was a war about power, who has it, States or Congress. Slaves were brought into it for public support when the going got rough.
I’m sorry, but both of these statements are based on nostalgic propaganda, not fact. The South, prior to the war, was excessively powerful (relative to its population) in congress. Based on the protocols of seniority and the tendency of Southern states to send the same candidate back to congress year after year, that same excessive power has been wielded by the Southern states from very late in the 19th century and throughout most of the 20th century.
The much maligned Reconstruction was a period of time in which the North (generally in the form of private investors) poured enormous sums of money into the South to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure. The period in which the U.S. Army actively participated in the control of the Southern states lasted fewer than three years (although there was a passive presence for a longer period). In fact, a better analogy for the post-war period would be that of WWII, in which U.S. assistance built facilities which would later jeopardize its own interests (durable goods manufacturing for the U.S. after WWII, textile mills for the North after the Civil War).
Occam:
I have no idea where you have gotten the idea that I think the Civil War was a moral crusade on the part of the North. I also have not diea what facts you are talking about which reduce the complex causes of teh Civil War to “power”. My guess is that they represent the type of in-depth analysis and rigorous standards that one is accustomed to finding in after-school specials and movies of the week, but it is hard to say since ou have neglected to actually provide any information.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
tom-- a respectable challenge, but as regards this board, i wish you had paid more attn. to my comments on the symbolism of the notorious rebel flag.
unfortunately, i posted here before reading scylla’s related board on southern secession-- maybe you should make your argument there, too, as i believe it would be of interest.
“The much maligned Reconstruction was a period of time in which the North (generally in the form of private investors) poured enormous sums of money into the South to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure.”
yes, and these “investors” were known as “carpetbaggers,” were they not?
“The period in which the U.S. Army actively participated in the control of the Southern states lasted fewer than three years (although there was a passive presence for a longer period).”
and there’s my “after the civil war”
“In fact, a better analogy for the post-war period would be that of WWII, in which U.S. assistance built facilities which would later jeopardize its own interests (durable goods manufacturing for the U.S. after WWII, textile mills for the North after the Civil War).”
this seems to be the only area where we disagree-- how did the union jeopardize its own interests by lending gov’t assistance to the southern region of its own nation?
Note the reference to textile mills in my statement which you quoted. Beginning around 1870, the South actively pursued the New England textile manufacturing industry (often financed by the “carpetbaggers” whom the the Southerners loved to hate–all the while accepting their money). By 1950, very few textile mills (and those mostly specialty operations) survived in the North. (Shoe manufacturing and some similar industries suffered similar fates.) Many (not all) of the economic problems that New England has suffered over the last 50 years can be directly tied to the exodus of industry to the South. Had the North actually imposed the Versaille-like sanctions that you alluded to, there would be no industry South of the Ohio or the Mason-Dixon line. The North would not only have prevented the textile industries from moving South, it would have broken up the iron works at Birmingham and taken other similar measures. (Which could have led to another Civil War, of course.)
As noted, while the South loved to revile the “carpetbaggers,” creating a mythology in which those dreadful Northerners came to ravage a distraught South, the truth is that those dreadful people actually brought money into a destitute and war-ravaged economy. There was really little money to be stolen from the post-bellum South. (Some thanks they got, huh?)