Confederate Flag

[CloakNDagger]

So you are mad because they didn't go through what you view as the proper steps to end a tyrannical government whose cornerstone was slavery?

Not mad.

The North's political maneuvers and military actions proved that the leadership's actual intentions didn't have the end of racism and slavery as their end goals. A look at what happened post war bears that thought out.

[formergothardite]

Why would you fly it if not in someone's face? Same thing except over graves, museums, and reenactments, but I don't think stupidity should be outlawed. If my neighbor wants to fly it, it will tell me to avoid him and question his opinions.

Yeah, same category but I'd put the Confederate national flag as worse than the battle flag because the invasion united communities that might have been willing to free slaves before and brought people together in defensive warfare. It's ironic that the battle flag takes more of the heat, but it is the one flown, so I understand.

So in the end it isn't over the top to compare the two flags because in general they both represent horrible crimes against humanity.

[CloakNDagger]

So in the end it isn't over the top to compare the two flags?

It's close. In the modern context knowing most people perceive it a certain way, yeah, it's offensive.

[formergothardite]

It's close. In the modern context knowing most people perceive it a certain way, yeah, it's offensive.

Well, this all started when you claimed it was over the top, so are you now saying that this statement was wrong? It wasn't just offensive in a modern context, the original context was offensive too. It was a battle flag to fight to keep a tyrannical country whose cornerstone was slavery. 100% offensive.

[CloakNDagger]

Well, this all started when you claimed it was over the top, so are you now saying that this statement was wrong? It wasn't just offensive in a modern context, the original context was offensive too. It was a battle flag to fight to keep a tyrannical country whose cornerstone was slavery. 100% offensive.

Almost, but not quite. You and I both know that there are a lot of people in the South who aren't flying that flag because of racism, but are stupidly proud "rebels" for one reason or another, or are of the common "Don't tread on me" type. I don't presume their racism and I don't presume them a threat even to my black friends. On the other hand, I generally would be fearful of encountering anyone deliberately displaying a Nazi flag.

[formergothardite]

Almost, but not quite. You and I both know that there are a lot of people in the South who aren't flying that flag because of racism, but are stupidly proud "rebels" for one reason or another, or are of the common "Don't tread on me" type. I don't presume their racism and I don't presume them a threat even to my black friends. On the other hand, I generally would be fearful of encountering anyone deliberately displaying a Nazi flag.

Ignorance isn't an excuse. There are people who claim that the Nazi flag isn't offensive either.

ETA: And IME a lot of it is willful ignorance because they don't want to accept that the Confederacy was the bad guy and their ancestors fought for a horrible cause.

When I look at people who fly the rebel flags I usually find that they are people who downplay slavery and have this idea the the white southerners of the Old South are victims. And that is a very dangerous mindset.

ETAA: And it doesn't help to end the ignorance about history for people to go around making excuses for those who fly the flag and act like it isn't offensive. The immediate reaction should be "This flag represents a crime against humanity and no one should be using it as a symbol of pride." not a long thread trying to defend the people who fly it and try to whitewash history.

[ShesCrafty]

The Confederate BATTLE flag existed because if the Northern invasion, period. That's why the issue of the war and the Northern intentions is germane. The Confederate national flag should receive more hatred if anything. I HAVE come to the conclusion that it is offensive to fly the flag in people's face, I'd still say the Nazi flag is 20-30% worse.

I see someone is a graduate of the Ken Alexander School of Statistics. :lol:

Sorry for the interruption, but that just tickled my funny bone. My patience with the pretentious, condescending little boy has reached an end but I appreciate your tenacity, formergathardite. Keep on fighting the good fight, I enjoy watching you shred his arguements to pieces. :)

[FloraKitty35]

Here is an article about a Confederate Flag rally in Lewes, DE.

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/new ... /30998665/

[RosyDaisy]

You and I both know that there are a lot of people in the South who aren't flying that flag because of racism, but are stupidly proud "rebels" for one reason or another, or are of the common "Don't tread on me" type.

BULLSHIT!!!! Just come to Alabama. In my home state, that flag is flown for both reasons inclusively.

[formergothardite]

I see someone is a graduate of the Ken Alexander School of Statistics. :lol:

Sorry for the interruption, but that just tickled my funny bone. My patience with the pretentious, condescending little boy has reached an end but I appreciate your tenacity, formergathardite. Keep on fighting the good fight, I enjoy watching you shred his arguements to pieces. :)

Sounds like it. I have to wonder, what method would one use to figure out that the human suffering endured by slaves is exactly 20-30% less so that make the flag less offensive? How does one even go about figuring that out?

[HarryPotterFan]

Sounds like it. I have to wonder, what method would one use to figure out that the human suffering endured by slaves is exactly 20-30% less so that make the flag less offensive? How does one even go about figuring that out?

Well, first you have to quantify how bad something is on a standardized scale. Like on a scale of 1 to 10, how horrible is something. 1 is "Unicorns who fart rainbows and frolic through a medow" and 10 is "Satan himself would bow down to your evil and make you King of Hell." Then Hocaust/slavery = x/100 and you cross multiply.

[CloakNDagger]

BULLSHIT!!!! Just come to Alabama. In my home state, that flag is flown for both reasons inclusively.

I have no doubt about that with your peeps... Same probably for Sour-th Cowrolina and some other places.

[CloakNDagger]

Sounds like it. I have to wonder, what method would one use to figure out that the human suffering endured by slaves is exactly 20-30% less so that make the flag less offensive? How does one even go about figuring that out?

Seriously, if you can't determine that mass execution regardless of age sex or gender is worse, there is something wrong with you. Same for world domination and invading multiple countries vs. being invaded, And I'm NOT saying that slavery isn't wrong, terrible to experience, or that it is all roses and not suffering.

[DowntownAbbey]

Making the argument that the Holocaust was worse, therefore the Nazi flag is more offensive is inherently complicated. There are certainly objective ways to compare the Holocaust and slavery in the South like number of victims total, number of dead, etc. But, ultimately, comparing the Holocaust and slavery in the South is like comparing apples and oranges. They are two different types of crimes. It is, in my mind, the equivalent to trying to compare murder to torture. When we, as Americans/Southerners, determine the Holocaust is worse than slavery in the South, we goes beyond objective criteria. There are historical, cultural, and psychological reasons that factor into this judgement of "worseness":

1. Historical distance. There is a closer historical tie to the Nazis than to slavery. There are still people alive who were alive during the period of the 1930s to mid-1940s meaning there are still people alive who felt the effects of the Nazi regime directly, be it Holocaust victims, those who fought for the regime, Europeans living under the regime, or others who fought against it.

2. Historical evidence. We have more evidence for the horrors the Nazis committed. We have video of the atrocities which probably has an effect similar to the televised nature of the Vietnam War (http://www.trincoll.edu/classes/hist300/media.htm). We have a plethora of documents that recount the inner workings of the regime. When documentaries are/have been done on the Holocaust, we get to hear from the actual victims themselves. Nazi concentration camps have been preserved as memorials.

3. The aftermath of the war, legal and cultural. There was a hard break after the fall of the Nazi regime. The Nuremberg trials were held; Nazi symbolism was banned. With the end of US slavery, we have the tenuous Reconstruction Era and few trials against former Confederates. The Confederacy has been commemorated throughout the South.

4. Psychology. I'm not an expert in this, but my basic knowledge of in-group bias and illusory superiority would lead me to believe that Americans, especially Southerners, would be predisposed to downplay the bad in American history as opposed to the bad in German history.

5. Lost Cause of the Confederacy

There is also the issue of intangibles. Is dying worse than losing your personhood/freedom? Is that something that can be objectively quantified or is it always subjective, depending upon the specific person, method of death, treatment as a slave? How do we reconcile the differential experience of victims?

At the end of the day, where does the comparison get us? Why are we needing to compare the two? Am I supposed to take comfort in the idea that at least the South wasn't as bad as the Nazis? Is someone offended by the Confederate flag supposed to be automatically less offended because at least it wasn't the Nazi flag? How do we reconcile the different connections people have to these two events though ancestry, experience, and historical connection that would affect being offended?

[RosyDaisy]

I have no doubt about that with your peeps... Same probably for Sour-th Cowrolina and some other places.

Including yours, asshole! Or did you forget or not believe it? You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper and showing just how deep you are in VF beliefs.

[CloakNDagger]

Including yours, asshole! Or did you forget or not believe it? You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper and showing just how deep you are in VF beliefs.

I know I've said it before, but the folks I worked with do NOT believe that black people are inferior. I think they really, really believe that they can have their cake and eat it to. As long as they preach "one blood" and welcome people of any color, they can fly the flag in good conscience teaching the "states rights" aspect of the war.

[RosyDaisy]

Again, I say BULLSHIT! The people you worked with are arrogant, abusive, racist, misogynistic, patriarchal fundamentalists. So are you. Stop putting on this pathetic facade. It isn't working.

[Mama Mia]

2. Newly elected President Lincoln vows to ban slavery in the before mentioned territories.

And just to clarify, the "states rights" that people love to bandy about: it actually referred to whether or not a slave owner from a slave state had the right to pursue an escaped slave into a free state. This was a problem because the free states had abolished slavery within their borders and felt that they had no obligation to assist in the capture or return of fugitive slaves.

To me, this makes it very clear that States Rights wasn't the true issue for the states to secede from the union.

The thirteen original colonies declared their independence and desire to start a new nation based on a set of common principles. Those principles were a very broad brush set of philosophical statements that needed actual content and specific guidelines as the nation became established and grew. The overarching goal of providing for the common good and welfare of the people needs detail as to what, exactly, that means. The federal government could easily decide that slavery doesn't meet the philosophical objectives stated in the constitution or the bill of rights and that new areas added to the United States could not participate in slavery. ( Of course, we could get into a different conversation of how freely these new territories "joined" in the first place - mainly by force, invasion and war - but that's another topic)

How can the southern states complain that the federal government is exceeding their authority in this area if they are talking about the specifics of implementing the constitution if the " federal government" is made up of a legislature elected by the population of the various states, and an administration who has been elected by the nation as a whole ? Where is the expansion of powers outside the scope of the constitution? Particularly when, I believe ( correct me if I'm wrong ) - the southern , less populated, states already had an unequal greater degree of power in the legislature. Not to the degree that rural states have a disproportionate degree of power now, but still, significant.

And how could they possibly claim " states rights" were an issue regarding some states not agreeing to return escaped slaves? That makes no sense. The " states rights" argument would seem to be clearly for a free state to determine the legal status of anyone within their borders, including people who had escaped slavery. Arguing that someone had the right to pursue the person who escaped slavery would be the same as saying they should be able to pursue and capture the person they kidnapped across state lines.

Despite the slave holding states greater power proportionate to size, they were still outnumbered when it came to this issue. they were losing to popular opinion and instead of accepting it they started a war.

[VelociRapture]

To me, this makes it very clear that States Rights wasn't the true issue for the states to secede from the union.

The thirteen original colonies declared their independence and desire to start a new nation based on a set of common principles. Those principles were a very broad brush set of philosophical statements that needed actual content and specific guidelines as the nation became established and grew. The overarching goal of providing for the common good and welfare of the people needs detail as to what, exactly, that means. The federal government could easily decide that slavery doesn't meet the philosophical objectives stated in the constitution or the bill of rights and that new areas added to the United States could not participate in slavery. ( Of course, we could get into a different conversation of how freely these new territories "joined" in the first place - mainly by force, invasion and war - but that's another topic)

How can the southern states complain that the federal government is exceeding their authority in this area if they are talking about the specifics of implementing the constitution if the " federal government" is made up of a legislature elected by the population of the various states, and an administration who has been elected by the nation as a whole ? Where is the expansion of powers outside the scope of the constitution? Particularly when, I believe ( correct me if I'm wrong ) - the southern , less populated, states already had an unequal greater degree of power in the legislature. Not to the degree that rural states have a disproportionate degree of power now, but still, significant.

And how could they possibly claim " states rights" were an issue regarding some states not agreeing to return escaped slaves? That makes no sense. The " states rights" argument would seem to be clearly for a free state to determine the legal status of anyone within their borders, including people who had escaped slavery. Arguing that someone had the right to pursue the person who escaped slavery would be the same as saying they should be able to pursue and capture the person they kidnapped across state lines.

Despite the slave holding states greater power proportionate to size, they were still outnumbered when it came to this issue. they were losing to popular opinion and instead of accepting it they started a war.

Exactly! You just stated that so perfectly! Bravo! :clap:

[formergothardite]

Seriously, if you can't determine that mass execution regardless of age sex or gender is worse, there is something wrong with you. Same for world domination and invading multiple countries vs. being invaded, And I'm NOT saying that slavery isn't wrong, terrible to experience, or that it is all roses and not suffering.

No I can't. How can you say that the mother whose child was torn from her arms and sold down South to a horrible slave owner who beat and raped her suffered 20-30% less than a mother whose child was torn from her arms and put into a gas chamber? How can you decide that the man who was whipped, hobbled and lived years in agony suffered 20-30 % less? How can you tell a person whose ancestors were slaves that the Confederate war flag is 20-30% less offensive and it would be over the top to for them to say that they are just as offended at seeing it flown on graves and the backs of trucks as a Jewish person would be at seeing a Nazi flag flown on the graves of Nazi soldiers and waving off the backs of trucks like it is a symbol of pride?

Why do you need to quibble over who suffered more? Why can't you just accept that the level of human suffering in both cases are so high that it is hard to comprehend and so both flags are 100% offensive and there is no excuse to fly them or be proud of them?

Just to remind you, this started when roddma said that it was silly for people to be offended by the Confederate flag being flown and I asked her if she would feel the same if it was a Nazi flag. Would she say that people shouldn't be offended if that was being glorified? Then you jumped in to claim it was "over the top" to put the Confederate flag in the same category as the Nazi flag. And it has ended with you saying that since the slave owners worked the people to death instead of killing them immediately the flag representing their oppression is 20-30% less offensive. Think about what you are saying here and think about why you are working so hard to find a way to make the Confederate flag less offensive.

ETA: I just don't think that there is any reason to try and rate the suffering when it comes to these levels of crimes against humanity. We should just admit that these things are all horrible and not play a "which was worse" game. There is simply no reason to blithely decide that the slaves suffered 20-30 % less and so people should be less offended by the flag representing their oppression. There is no way to actually know that this is true and it is offensive on every level.

[catparty]

Almost, but not quite. You and I both know that there are a lot of people in the South who aren't flying that flag because of racism, but are stupidly proud "rebels" for one reason or another, or are of the common "Don't tread on me" type. I don't presume their racism and I don't presume them a threat even to my black friends. On the other hand, I generally would be fearful of encountering anyone deliberately displaying a Nazi flag.

The Confederate flag as we know it was only flown to intimidate the children integrating Southern schools. It wasn't even an issue before that because it was a treasonous flag flown by anti-Americans.

You hit the nail on the head when you called loyalty to the Confederate flag stupid, but it's also inherently malicious and purposely inflammatory. It doesn't matter what its personal connotations to you or any of these stupid but well-meaning "rebels" are, its purpose is the intimidation of black Americans period.

[twinmama]

The fundamental reason that some people who are not racist choose to still support the Confederacy is because they believe as did our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence that states, governments, and groups of people have the right to break away from tyrannical governments if their interests no longer align.

I think that is a fine belief. What I think is stupid is hitching your wagon to a group whose interests didn't align with the governments because they wanted to own other people. My husband is convinced that our current two party system is so fractured and the parties are so opposed to working together that we are headed for becoming two separate countries anyway. But at least that would be based on religious differences (basically, abortion/gay rights/and all the republican v democrat issues), rather than something as horrific as slavery.

[twinmama]

So was your statement about it being "over the top" to say that the Confederate flag is just as offensive as the Nazi flag your beliefs or were you just arguing for ignorance in that case.

Not that anyone asked :) but my opinion on the two flags is something doesn't need to be equal to Nazism or the Nazi flag in order to be a horrible, shameful part of our history. No one wins at the pain Olympics. What's worse? Torture or immediate death? Doesn't matter!!!

Maybe it's simplistic of me, but all I have to think about is "if my child was black how would a Confederate flag make me feel?" I will never be a black woman obviously, but I could easily have a black child. That flag would scare the shit out of me, for my child. That fear, whether justified or not, makes flying the stupid flag not worth it. The south has so much good to be proud of, this flag does not represent ANY of it.

[twinmama]

Thank you. They conveniently forget the North has their 'ghettos' and slums that divide people by race and class just like anywhere else.

ANd if we are so against slavery let's stop 1)celebrating Christopher Columbus who was a slave holder, thief, and murderer.

2)celebrating the first 8 presidents

3) buying/selling foreign products from countries or stores(cough cough Walmart) that pay slave wages

We support slavery and racisim in many indirect ways.

Some places are actually switching from Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day. Like Minneapolis, MN.

[CloakNDagger]

The Confederate flag as we know it was only flown to intimidate the children integrating Southern schools. It wasn't even an issue before that because it was a treasonous flag flown by anti-Americans.

That's just flat out untrue. Also, I suppose your current flag is also treasonous to England.

You hit the nail on the head when you called loyalty to the Confederate flag stupid, but it's also inherently malicious and purposely inflammatory. It doesn't matter what its personal connotations to you or any of these stupid but well-meaning "rebels" are, its purpose is the intimidation of black Americans period.

It is stupid, but how do you explain a black person flying it? Are they trying to intimidate themselves or other blacks? Or, are they just stupid and uninformed? Is it possible they view it differently and have a right to?