Confederate Flag

[roddma]

I have explained myself clearly What one person finds offensive another will not. If anyone finds a flag racists and offensive it's their view. The CF has been out of commission over 150 years and IMO means nothing to me.Furthermore, you dont need to wave a certain flag to be racist. And even though NY abolished slavery some 40 years before the CIvil War, the were still a home to slaves and still profited off slave made goods as other non slave states. And do you think America cared about minorities or free slaves in 1860s? I say a vast majority didn't. I will say this again-freed slaves still werent equal to whites. Northerner feared freed slaves would come take the jobs. Dont say this isnt relevant because it is. I see by posts here how much of the nation is misinformed about history. The pot needs to stop calling the kettle black on racism.

.http://gothamist.com/2015/07/06/nyc_slave_history.php

[formergothardite]

I'm a Southerner, so I'm not the "pot calling the kettle black" I'm speaking of the actual history of the Confederate flag.

What one person finds offensive another will not. If anyone finds a flag racists and offensive it's their view.

I'm really curious if you extend this to other things like the Nazi flag or even something like black face or those horrible caricatures of Native Americans. That is something you haven't answered. Would you act this way if it was a Jewish person offended at a Nazi flag being raised as a symbol of pride?

[samurai_sarah]

I have explained myself clearly What one person finds offensive another will not. If anyone finds a flag racists and offensive it's their view. The CF has been out of commission over 150 years and IMO means nothing to me.Furthermore, you dont need to wave a certain flag to be racist. And even though NY abolished slavery some 40 years before the CIvil War, the were still a home to slaves and still profited off slave made goods as other non slave states. And do you think America cared about minorities or free slaves in 1860s? I say a vast majority didn't. I will say this again-freed slaves still werent equal to whites. Northerner feared freed slaves would come take the jobs. Dont say this isnt relevant because it is. I see by posts here how much of the nation is misinformed about history. The pot needs to stop calling the kettle black on racism.

.http://gothamist.com/2015/07/06/nyc_slave_history.php

No.

[CloakNDagger]

But according to CnD slaves weren't typically treated this way. :roll:

You lie about me and don't care. I get it.

[formergothardite]

You lie about me and don't care. I get it.

So now you are agreeing with me that slaves were typically raped, beaten, tortured, given very minimal food, clothing and shelter and were basically worked to death? Because you seemed to be saying the opposite earlier.

And the stuff you rightly mention wasn't the default state. Plenty of evidence to the contrary. Not saying it didn't happen a lot, but I think you'd be hard pressed to prove it was a majority, either.

ETA: while in college and studying the average life of a slave we learned about this slave owner, who from all accounts was a typical slave owner, not known for being harsh or anything, but he kept records of all the times he whipped his slaves. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the number of whippings were very, very high. Anyone who wasn't pregnant or a small child got whipped on a regular basis. The discussion we had was that looking at his records could give us a general idea of how most slaves were treated.

ETAA: And it really, I can't believe we are having to argue over how awful the slaves suffered. :angry-banghead: No matter how they were treated, they were still dehumanized and basically worked to death. That your friends wave the flag in actual ignorance or because they want to pretend it stands for something else does not make the Confederate flag any less offensive. What the North was doing at that time also doesn't make the flag less offensive.

[samurai_sarah]

You lie about me and don't care. I get it.

You really don't read what you write, do you CnD?

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Regarding the claim that some of the horrors of slavery weren't the default I can share some anecdata.

I have a family member who did an incredibly extensive family history when he joined the LDS church. I'm not sure why they care about family trees, but they really do. And I love genealogy so it was a huge to have had so much of the legwork done on one side. Because of this I have copies of four wills from the latter 1600s to the late 1840's from slave holding direct ancestors. Two were father/son and the others separate families who wouldn't even meet until long after the date of the will - so the instances of people managing their legal affairs independent of each other in three separate states (VA, NC, TN.)

The number of slaves being left as property, along with land, material possessions, money, and livestock ranged from 4-31. In 3 out of 4 wills there are references to many slaves which had been previously given to various family members.

It's chilling how matter of fact the wording is. It's nothing more than disposition of assets.

What they all have in common is families of the enslaved being broken up with less concern than there was for splitting acreage amongst sons. Lot of concern over why the land was divided the way it was but the people? Kids under ten with notations of the work they do. Someone hand wrote that Sarah, age 7 was excellent at working in the kitchen. She was being sent to an heir alone - losing her entire family to work with strangers. At seven years old.

Unless three separate families in three separate states who just happened to be in my ancestry were such aberrations that they were worse than everyone else in the old south I have to believe that this was par for the course.

Yes - anecdata. Four small data points with scant or no info about their lives or how they were treated beyond this, but it shows that in these instances they certainly weren't treated as human beings. The women in the deceased family didn't inherent (outside of some material items) but they were mentioned because the legal obligation of specific male family members to provide was clearly spelled out.

They may not have enslaved people with the intent to kill, I agree with CND on that. Just like you wouldn't purchase expensive farm equipment with the intention of disabling it's use...but that's the point. They were business assets to use as their owners saw fit. Punishment, rape, families and social units being torn apart. No childhood when you are required to work before you're really able.

Yes, immediate genocide wasn't the plan. The Nazis and champions of slavery had very different end goals. I don't know about any of you but if asked to chose between the horrors of genocide and living a life where everyone I loved was suffering under slavery. Having my babies ripped from me, impotent to stop the rape, beatings, degradation of those closest to me...who can honestly say they can quantify one form of hell over the other?

My long winded point is this - the life in the wills I described? That's the old south. That's what the confederacy was so desperate to preserve. When they say it's southern pride and the south will rise again...what is it they long for if not the resurrection of the antebellum south?

If it some other kind of regional pride, one that isn't steeped in racism, pride of post-civil rights era south then explain the logic of their choice of flag.

Ignorance isn't a dirty word and it exists. When I was a kid I didn't think twice about the General Lee and certainly don't believe the Duke's secret backstory involved klan meetings. It was shorthand for "the south." There is a reason if that show were being made today the roof of that Charger would be sans flag - as a society we're becoming more sensitive to what assholes we we can be. No where near there yet, but there has been progress.

Why some want to defend those who want to preserve this symbol is something I don't understand.

Edited for punctuation

[Geechee Girl]

You bring up some interesting points regarding genealogy, HNIB. We descendants of slaves are a lost people who are unable to trace our roots. My own family can only go by oral tradition, because there is no paper trail.

[CloakNDagger]

Rape and murder are both bad. They aren't the same. Both are wrong, they aren't the same. Get that formergothardite? Racial slavery was wrong, maybe the numbers are in your favor in general about how they were treated. I'm more than willing to concede the possibility. There were fundamental differences between the Nazi situation and the Confederacy, but both were wrong (the Confederacy on key points enumerated in the Declaration of Causes of Texas and South Carolina in particular, not so much Virginia in my opinion) and deserved to lose. Presuming to know why people hold to their heritage, or presuming them to be racist when they were raised in a certain culture is flat out ignorant and also offensive.

Ironically, the North / Federal Government treated the South about like an attempted escapee slave was apparently treated in the South. Kind of ironic, and perhaps fitting, but the Southern States - and that used to mean something other than a section of a country like a county or city, did fight over their sovereignty and right to make political decisions. Those decisions happened to be wrong, and in that I believe they were in error and again deserved to lose, but the nature of the "United States of America" was deliberately changed by the North in the process.

I have nothing else to say.

[RosyDaisy]

You bring up some interesting points regarding genealogy, HNIB. We descendants of slaves are a lost people who are unable to trace our roots. My own family can only go by oral tradition, because there is no paper trail.

This is where genealogy DNA would be of value to you. I don't have the numbers handy, but quite a few African Americans have been able to find the earliest known slave ancestor (~1840s-1860s) and/or connect you to others with others that you share a common ancestor with.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

You bring up some interesting points regarding genealogy, HNIB. We descendants of slaves are a lost people who are unable to trace our roots. My own family can only go by oral tradition, because there is no paper trail.

I've watched that genealogy show on PBS over the years (I forget the name, I believe Professer Gates was the host) and they've shown how difficult and in some cases impossible to go any further for descendants of slaves because of lack of records.

Because my family records are online in most of the main searchable databases as well as in the LDS library I've run across others looking into the same families but looking for their ancestors in the slave records. It's sobering because there is nothing anyone can do to rectify the past; the least we can do is not glorify it.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Rape and murder are both bad. They aren't the same. Both are wrong, they aren't the same. Get that formergothardite? Racial slavery was wrong, maybe the numbers are in your favor in general about how they were treated. I'm more than willing to concede the possibility. There were fundamental differences between the Nazi situation and the Confederacy, but both were wrong (the Confederacy on key points enumerated in the Declaration of Causes of Texas and South Carolina in particular, not so much Virginia in my opinion) and deserved to lose. Presuming to know why people hold to their heritage, or presuming them to be racist when they were raised in a certain culture is flat out ignorant and also offensive.

Ironically, the North / Federal Government treated the South about like an attempted escapee slave was apparently treated in the South. Kind of ironic, and perhaps fitting, but the Southern States - and that used to mean something other than a section of a country like a county or city, did fight over their sovereignty and right to make political decisions. Those decisions happened to be wrong, and in that I believe they were in error and again deserved to lose, but the nature of the "United States of America" was deliberately changed by the North in the process.

I have nothing else to say.

did fight over their sovereignty and right to make political decisions.

. Decisions which affected the human rights and every aspect of the lives of millions of men, women, and children living there who had NO voice.

Comparing the south escaping the U.S. Government to a runaway slave? How many of those runaway slaves took hostages? Because the south that wasn't just trying to flee, they were trying to flee with 3.5 million hostages. 2.3+ mil in the lower south and 1.2+ in the upper south. 47% and 29% respectively.

And let's not forget those pesky border states who really wanted to keep their slaves, too, and their fates hinged in the success/failure of secession. That's another 400K +. 13% of the population of those states.

In Mississippi slaves were 49% of the population.

Your analogy only works if those approximately 4 million slaves weren't people morally entitled to human rights. If not then it doesn't work since it's not about self determination since that flies out the window as soon as you take hostages.

Even if you take morality off the table it's the inability for the flag apologists to understand and apply basic logic which is troubling.

[RosyDaisy]

CnD, let's get to the point. Why exactly are you here? I mean it. Cut the bullshit and be honest. Why are you so butthurt and on a phishing expedition?

[SpeakNow]

Presuming to know why people hold to their heritage, or presuming them to be racist when they were raised in a certain culture is flat out ignorant and also offensive.

/quote]

Let's look at this another way. Let's say someone was descended from a Nazi. They "hold on to their heritage" by displaying the nazi flag on their property. Is it then wrong for me to assume they're anti-Semitic? Because, using your logic, it would be.

[Curious]

I am still a few pages behind on this thread, but wanted to post before I saw something shiny and forgot.

For the record, FJ considers the Confederate Flag a symbol of hate. While we allow things like the screenshots from Jessa's IG to chronicle folks beliefs, in case they scrub things later, a member would not be allowed to use an image of the flag as an avatar.

CnD, you may have answered this somewhere in the pages I have not read yet, but I haven't seen an answer so far. I notice you keep saying you are against "racial slavery."

I'm not really clear on what this means? Most people just say they are against slavery, so you qualifying it makes me think you are ok with some kinds of slavery.

[CloakNDagger]

CnD, you may have answered this somewhere in the pages I have not read yet, but I haven't seen an answer so far. I notice you keep saying you are against "racial slavery."

I'm not really clear on what this means? Most people just say they are against slavery, so you qualifying it makes me think you are ok with some kinds of slavery.

Slavery being the holding of a person against their will, I don't believe it is always wrong. It must be justified by some higher wrong such as the act of murder or some other egregious offense. Actually, I would believe that murder would be a wrong reason to hold someone in prison except until a trial could take place, but for a crime like maybe the Enron deal where millions and millions were swindled from other people and a person if unreformed might be expected to further swindle others they might reasonably be compelled to be under the forced direction of others. I don't think that government entities in history have proven to be much better at managing such individuals than any private entity. However, any reason (such as racial beliefs) other than the commission of a crime would be a wrong reason to allow it, and a means of relief and termination of the debt should be determined. I don't believe that dehumanization as some have put it is a good thing, and that is what is even more wrong with the racial slavery of the South. Separating families is absolutely wrong.

[formergothardite]

Curious, he has said that he is okay with enslaving people. His grand idea was to turn prisoners into slaves. As someone else pointed out, America already tried this and it didn't work too well.

CnD, unlike you I cannot presume to know who suffered more and there is no reason to do so. I'm not sure why you keep doing that. Are you that desperate to find a way to make the Confederacy not be 100% offensive and awful? Rape, torture, murder, starvation, beatings, being used for medical experiments, living in deplorable situations, all are awful things. All are things the slaves endured. All are things endured by people in concentration camps during the Holocaust. Who are you to decide the slaves had it better? Really? How can you decide that? I can't and there is simply no point in doing that. Even if you could come up with a way to quantify the pain and suffering and figure out the slaves suffered marginally less, it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't take away from what the history of the Confederacy and the Confederate flag really is. It would still be 100% offensive and awful.

Presuming to know why people hold to their heritage, or presuming them to be racist when they were raised in a certain culture is flat out ignorant and also offensive

Explain this more. What exactly are you speaking of. What heritage are you talking about? The Old South built on slavery? The Confederate flag which was created to defend a tyrannical government built on the cornerstone of slavery and then was brought back as a symbol of oppression to try and scare black people? People using this in ignorance doesn't make it less offensive, just like me using the racist term in ignorance didn't make it less offensive. And if your friends have been informed of the history and then continue to use that flag, well they are the offensive, selfish ones.

[formergothardite]

Slavery being the holding of a person against their will, I don't believe it is always wrong. It must be justified by some higher wrong such as the act of murder or some other egregious offense. Actually, I would believe that murder would be a wrong reason to hold someone in prison except until a trial could take place, but for a crime like maybe the Enron deal where millions and millions were swindled from other people and a person if unreformed might be expected to further swindle others they might reasonably be compelled to be under the forced direction of others. I don't think that government entities in history have proven to be much better at managing such individuals than any private entity. However, any reason (such as racial beliefs) other than the commission of a crime would be a wrong reason to allow it, and a means of relief and termination of the debt should be determined. I don't believe that dehumanization as some have put it is a good thing, and that is what is even more wrong with the racial slavery of the South. Separating families is absolutely wrong.

You can't turn someone into a slave without dehumanizing them. A key part of slavery is that a person is turned into an object owned by another person. Slavery takes away the humanity of a person. Which is why it is always wrong.

Is it because the Bible never spoke against slavery the reason you won't speak against it?

[CloakNDagger]

CnD, let's get to the point. Why exactly are you here? I mean it. Cut the bullshit and be honest. Why are you so butthurt and on a phishing expedition?

Here because of the ongoing stuff with VF / Doug Phillips is a Tool - which ain't over yet. Secondly, it is good to discuss things with people who disagree. My positions are different now than they were when I first came here. I'm not butthurt and not intending to phish - Why you would accuse me of that I cannot understand... https://www.google.com/search?q=phishin ... 8&oe=utf-8

[CloakNDagger]

Curious, he has said that he is okay with enslaving people. His grand idea was to turn prisoners into slaves. As someone else pointed out, America already tried this and it didn't work too well.

Actually, I think we still engage in it with the current prison system. No significant difference. You're still under humans caging you.

CnD, unlike you I cannot presume to know who suffered more and there is no reason to do so. I'm not sure why you keep doing that.

Honest, you are missing my points. I concede that and think I've stated as much. Death / genocide is a different, final kind of suffering.

Are you that desperate to find a way to make the Confederacy not be 100% offensive and awful? Rape, torture, murder, starvation, beatings, being used for medical experiments, living in deplorable situations, all are awful things. All are things the slaves endured. All are things endured by people in concentration camps during the Holocaust. Who are you to decide the slaves had it better? Really? How can you decide that? I can't and there is simply no point in doing that. Even if you could come up with a way to quantify the pain and suffering and figure out the slaves suffered marginally less, it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't take away from what the history of the Confederacy and the Confederate flag really is. It would still be 100% offensive and awful.

Except you still won't consider even the possibility that a real portion of the South wasn't primarily engaging in warfare because they necessarily wanted to keep slaves. That's the difference. I could accept 100% your stuff about slaves and suffering and still believe that some of the folks from TN and VA weren't really interested in holding on to slavery, but didn't want to be part of a "Union" that would behave in a certain way.

Explain this more. What exactly are you speaking of. What heritage are you talking about? If a person happened to know that their ancestor wasn't in favor of black slavery, but was fighting because of their belief about the Constitution and forms of government, that would be one reason. The Old South built on slavery? The Confederate flag which was created to defend a tyrannical government built on the cornerstone of slavery and then was brought back as a symbol of oppression to try and scare black people? More precisely the Confederate Battle Flag which was NOT the "National Flag" and which was fought under by different groups people who's primary interests were varied and included defending their homes and towns and crops from invading forces? People using this in ignorance doesn't make it less offensive, just like me using the racist term in ignorance didn't make it less offensive. And if your friends have been informed of the history and then continue to use that flag, well they are the offensive, selfish ones.

Maybe, but if the documents they are familiar with back them up and disagree with you, it's not so much selfish as it is intellectual disagreement. The battle flag represents to them a stand against overreach by the Federal Government and some of the people I know of that fly it would be angry and rightly so if you accused them of being racist. I have come to see that it is wrong and offensive because it's all wrapped up in the awful declarations of cause by SC and TX, but you cannot presume to paint everyone as intentionally or deliberately racist for flying that flag.

[violynn]

Rape and murder are both bad. They aren't the same. Both are wrong, they aren't the same.

Good gravy, I hope so!

Sorry about the long run-on sentences and lecturing, every one else. Watching CnD quantify pain and suffering just finally pushed me over the metaphorical ledge.

[VelociRapture]

Here because of the ongoing stuff with VF / Doug Phillips is a Tool - which ain't over yet. Secondly, it is good to discuss things with people who disagree. My positions are different now than they were when I first came here. I'm not butthurt and not intending to phish - Why you would accuse me of that I cannot understand... https://www.google.com/search?q=phishin ... 8&oe=utf-8

CloakNDagger, I don't want to offend you or anything. If I do, please know that I'm sorry for doing so and it was not my intention at all.

I know that you were raised in a fundamentalist environment and you may, or may not, have been subject to less than ideal circumstances because of that.

My question to you is this: Do you think that your position regarding slavery in the South prior to and during the Civil War has anything to do with your circumstances growing up?

Obviously, I have no idea what you may have experienced during your childhood and I don't know nearly enough about VF either. . . but I was wondering because a lot of the Fundie families we read about here do use physical violence (and other forms of abuse) against their children in order to force them to think and behave in a certain way. And, unfortunately, we know all too well that these parents place no value on their children as individuals - the same way that slave owners placed no value on slaves as individuals. The only way these parents and those slave owners were able to keep control is/was to dehumanize their children/slaves to the point that they were willing to accept any abuse doled out to them.

Is it possible that maybe you're so set on your point of view because admitting that slavery was equally as bad as the Holocaust means admitting that what you (or someone you love) may have gone through as a child was just as bad? And if you weren't subjected to that type of abuse (which I sincerely hope you weren't), do you think that some of the people who do cling so much to southern pride and the idea that slavery wasn't so bad did have their views shaped by their childhood trauma?

*Please note, when I ask those questions in the last paragraph, I'm referring to any type of abuse - not just physical. Some parents don't physically harm their children through violence, but so use emotional, mental, or spiritual warfare to dehumanize their children. And, again, please know that I do not mean to offend or upset you in asking any of this.

[CloakNDagger]

You can't turn someone into a slave without dehumanizing them. A key part of slavery is that a person is turned into an object owned by another person. Slavery takes away the humanity of a person. Which is why it is always wrong.

Is it because the Bible never spoke against slavery the reason you won't speak against it?

A person remains a person and I think one could choose to treat them very much human. I think that is totally an attitude on the part of the person over the slave, or prisoner, or whatever. Manstealing, and forced slavery without the commission of a crime was and is always wrong I think because of precisely the purpose of their enslavement being for the profit or use of another and nothing more. If it is for the compensation of wrong done, it should be treated differently and there should be a limit on it, which forces a more humane point of view. Imprisonment, or some other form of slavery or punishment for crime is an evil itself, but a necessary one to deter people from willy nilly committing crimes against others.

On the flip side, it doesn't take slavery to dehumanize someone, either. I can think of a few people discussed on these boards where the marriages and families of some of the people in the movement seem a bit dehumanizing.

[formergothardite]

CnD, actions speak louder than words. In the end, the states and people who fought on the side of the Confederacy were fighting to form a tyrannical country where it would be illegal to end slavery, removed some rights of the states and wanted to expand the slave territory. They are not going to be able to claim a moral high ground because they got mad at the Union for something and then went and joined something even worse.

I have met people on the internet whose ancestors were Nazis. Some have claimed(and say they have proof) that their ancestors did not really want to kill all the Jews and instead joined for other reasons. Following your train of thought it is perfectly acceptable for them to take pride in their Nazi heritage. Is this correct? If not can you explain the difference in a way in which you don't quantify the pain and suffering endured by slaves?

The Confederate battle flag was used in a battle to help protect a tyrannical government built on the cornerstone of slavery. End of story. You can try your hardest to make it something else, but that is what it really is. Why would your friends choose a symbol of tyranny and oppression to represent standing against the federal government? It isn't an intellectual disagreement because history and facts are on my side(feel free to provide proof that the Confederacy was not a tyrannical government built on oppression).

[ShepherdontheRock]

Actually, I think we still engage in it with the current prison system. No significant difference. You're still under humans caging you.

So? You don't think that's what Black Lives Matter and human rights groups are campaigning against? The privatization of the American Prison System? Ending the drug wars and mass incarceration, in many instances of non-violent criminals? That's not working very well either, and MANY MANY people are trying to get us out of it.

Honest, you are missing my points. I concede that and think I've stated as much. Death / genocide is a different, final kind of suffering.

Except you still won't consider even the possibility that a real portion of the South wasn't primarily engaging in warfare because they necessarily wanted to keep slaves. That's the difference. I could accept 100% your stuff about slaves and suffering and still believe that some of the folks from TN and VA weren't really interested in holding on to slavery, but didn't want to be part of a "Union" that would behave in a certain way.

Except who do you think the people in power, ruling in the government, the leaders of Southern Society wanted? SLAVERY. And they spun stories so that other southern people would decide.

In RE "who had it worse" you may be interested to read "Worlds of Color" by WEB DuBois. He brings up interesting points about colonialism vs. the holocaust.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... rlds-color

Maybe, but if the documents they are familiar with back them up and disagree with you, it's not so much selfish as it is intellectual disagreement. The battle flag represents to them a stand against overreach by the Federal Government and some of the people I know of that fly it would be angry and rightly so if you accused them of being racist. I have come to see that it is wrong and offensive because it's all wrapped up in the awful declarations of cause by SC and TX, but you cannot presume to paint everyone as intentionally or deliberately racist for flying that flag.

People who were sporting the Nazi Flag were also fighting against Communism/other non-racist issues. Doesn't make the swastika less hateful/offensive. Because what is it commonly remembered as now? A RACIST SYMBOL OF ANTI-SEMITISM. Not as an anti-communist symbol.

AND I don't know why you fail to see that owning other people and treating them like objects is dehumanizing/making them less-than/making them view themselves as less-than/making others view themselves as less-than.

And RE enslaving as punishment- the punishment for modern inmates is to be incarcerated away from society. NOT "be forced to work like cattle." Because that's basically what's happening in some modern prisons. An inmate is forced to participate in "optional" work detail in order to be treated like a human being.