Confederate Flag

[formergothardite]

There is no way to humanely enslave someone. The mere act of slavery is inhumane. It doesn't make the person less human, but it treats them as less than a human.

You don't have to enslave someone to treat them as less than human, but if you turn someone into a slave, you are automatically treating them as an object that is owned, not a person.

I'll ask again, is your view on slavery because the Bible never says it is wrong? Most people today, even fundamental Christians, don't struggle with the morality of slavery. Most just accept that it is wrong, but you have a hard time with that idea. It is really odd and I'm wondering if it is because of the way you were raised to interpret the Bible.

[CloakNDagger]

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? (1)

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? (2) 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.

1. Probably. I read stuff like this: http://www.scv.org/pdf/ConfederateCatechism.pdf which gives one a VERY different perspective than what y'all have here.

2. I do think the slavery of blacks in the South was equally bad, just different. No one in the South to my knowledge was calling for the extermination of blacks. The South's theology was definitely warped as evidenced by the statements in the TX declaration of causes, but even that was a step removed from Hitler deciding that all Jews should be rounded up and killed.

3. I don't know. I think that there is a real sense in some of the South that the war wasn't just about slavery. People really do believe stuff like I posted a link to under #1 there. You may find this weird, but I believe that there are Confederate battle flag waving types who genuinely would happily shoot at KKK peeps if it was legal and not see themselves as hypocrites (which I think is odd, now).

[CloakNDagger]

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.

And I agree with them campaigning against it. It's really still a racist system and not only that, but a lot of so-called "crimes" aren't really morally wrong but punish poor people who can't afford ridiculous fines and stuff in the system. The neighbor smoking a joint is not harming me or anyone else. Someone has to actually be injured for it to be morally wrong.

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.

Conceded.

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

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.

[CloakNDagger]

There is no way to humanely enslave someone. The mere act of slavery is inhumane. It doesn't make the person less human, but it treats them as less than a human.

You don't have to enslave someone to treat them as less than human, but if you turn someone into a slave, you are automatically treating them as an object that is owned, not a person.

See I don't think that's a given. A person under a form of indenture for crime or debt doesn't have to be considered owned except in that they have by crime or misdeed or such put themselves into that position. If a person were to steal $100,000 in value from you, they don't owe society a debt, they owe you the debt. If I drive recklessly and hit your house and cause it to burn down, I don't owe society, I owe you the damages. We sometimes award more than the actual damages as a deterrent and as a compensation for the loss of value and ability to use the property or value lost. If you burned down my house, I may additionally have to pay for new items in the house and for a hotel or apartment to stay in during the rebuild. If you steal my means of doing business, I may be hurting badly in other ways. Many times today, the actual victim of the person committing the crime receives little or no real compensation for the loss of property, value, time, etc... and society in general ends up paying for the life support (food, shelter, etc... of the criminal instead). That's not justice. Setting a real value on the damage and forcing that person to work until it was repaid is justice. What we have today is not. And I do believe in limits. The minute it's paid, they should be free to go.

I'll ask again, is your view on slavery because the Bible never says it is wrong? Most people today, even fundamental Christians, don't struggle with the morality of slavery. Most just accept that it is wrong, but you have a hard time with that idea. It is really odd and I'm wondering if it is because of the way you were raised to interpret the Bible.

To some degree, yes. But I also believe that racial, or any form of kidnapping slavery is worthy of a death penalty. The only reason I would hesitate for a minute to call for the death penalty of a plantation owner is because they weren't the ones that actually kidnapped the black slaves to begin with, and many of them inherited them from two or three generations back. People in Boston, New York, the slave ship folks, and the people catching other people in Africa were certainly criminals. Is my position on that clear?

[formergothardite]

We aren't going to agree on the morality of slavery. Most people in America have realized it is morally wrong to own another person. But there is no point in arguing with you about that since you are just going to keep claiming that slavery isn't inhumane.

I'm more interested in knowing on your thoughts on this:

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?

And if you agree with this:

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.

[CloakNDagger]

In bold for ease of formatting...

We aren't going to agree on the morality of slavery. Most people in America have realized it is morally wrong to own another person. But there is no point in arguing with you about that since you are just going to keep claiming that slavery isn't inhumane.

I'm more interested in knowing on your thoughts on this:

They needed to participate in stuff like Rommel (allegedly) and Bonhoeffer and those involved in Valkyrie did - but a lot earlier - in order to have pride in their German Heritage. Kristallnacht was going on before the war started and there was no reason to be comfortable when Germany was at peace rounding up Jews. If you were growing up as a ten year old boy at Kristallnacht and were a 17 year old fighting to protect your mother and sisters on the Eastern Front from Russian soldiers who were raping and murdering women, I don't think one should have shame for that fighting, but one could still believe that their country was wrong to have picked the fight and at the same time choose to defend their hometown from the invaders.

And if you agree with this:

[formergothardite]

So it would be wrong for someone who was a Nazi to try and act like the Nazi flag isn't offensive and instead use it as a symbol of pride in their heritage? Would it be offensive for them to pretend it is anything but a symbol of something good just like the people do whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy and just like they do with the Confederate war flag?

Why did you mark out tyrannical country? Do you not believe that the Confederacy was a tyrannical country? And again, do the states who joined for reasons outside of slavery, in your mind, get to claim a moral high ground because they got mad at the Union and helped form a country that was even worse?

[CloakNDagger]

So it would be wrong for someone who was a Nazi to try and act like the Nazi flag isn't offensive and instead use it as a symbol of pride in their heritage? Yep Would it be offensive for them to pretend it is anything but a symbol of something good just like the people do whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy and just like they do with the Confederate war flag? You trying to force me to determine it to be equivalent, which I reject on at least two or three points. I NEARLY agree with you, but not quite.

Why did you mark out tyrannical country? Context matters. The fighting didn't begin to form the Confederacy. Some of those states might have preferred to stay separate like Sam Houston recommended for Texas. The initiation of the invasion galvanized the Confederacy into unity and not all of the states necessarily agreed with the final version of the Confederate constitution.Do you not believe that the Confederacy was a tyrannical country? South Carolina, for sure, Texas, for sure, maybe not all of the states.And again, do the states who joined in your mind get to claim a moral high ground because they got mad at the Union and helped form a country that was even worse?

I don't think anyone had the high moral ground in the Civil War at this point.

[formergothardite]

You are avoiding answering the question. Is the government formed by the Confederacy a tyrannical one. I'm not talking about the fighting here, I'm talking about the actual government that the Confederacy decided to form. All the states were a member of the Confederacy and so agreed to that constitution.

Are you saying that the side that ended a nation based around slavery wasn't slightly morally better than the nation whose cornerstone was oppression and slavery? Not even a tiny bit?

[CloakNDagger]

You are avoiding answering the question. Is the government formed by the Confederacy a tyrannical one. I'm not talking about the fighting here, I'm talking about the actual government that the Confederacy decided to form. All the states were a member of the Confederacy and so agreed to that constitution.

Worded that way, yes.

Are you saying that the side that ended a nation based around slavery wasn't slightly morally better than the nation whose cornerstone was oppression and slavery? Not even a tiny bit?

Yep. They were still for the most part racists in the government (if it had really been just an abolitionist movement, I think things would have turned out much better), the primary purpose of going to war/invading the South was NOT to end racism - it was to "preserve the Union" - as it was - and slavery would have remained in those states if they had just said, "Ok, we can't secede", and the North didn't free their own slaves (Even President Grant?) until later proving that ending slavery wasn't that urgent. They continued to engage in racial/genocidal manner towards the native Americans, etc...

[formergothardite]

I do think the slavery of blacks in the South was equally bad

I don't have to force you to determine it to be equivalent, you have already admitted that it was. So if what the Confederacy did to slaves is equally bad to what the Nazi's did to Jewish people, why do you give people a pass for co-opting the Confederate battle flag and passing it off as something not offensive?

[formergothardite]

Yep. They were still for the most part racists in the government (if it had really been just an abolitionist movement, I think things would have turned out much better), the primary purpose of going to war/invading the South was NOT to end racism, and they didn't free their own slaves (Even President Grant?) until later proving that ending slavery wasn't that urgent. They continued to engage in racial/genocidal manner towards the native Americans, etc...

I'm just going to keep sticking to the actual Confederacy here and what it stood for, because that is the issue in this thread.

So to sum it up: The Confederacy was a tyrannical government. The states that left the Union for whatever the fuck reasons they decided to leave, created an even worse country than the one they left. There was then a war to end this country(the reasons, for this thread are irrelevant). The war did end this tyrannical country. The Confederate battle flag was used to fight to keep this country built on tyranny and oppression. Later it gained popularity as a symbol of racism to try and keep black people oppressed. And this whole thread is because some people want to pretend that the history of the South/ Confederacy isn't a history of oppression, racism and tyranny. At best they are ignorant(but that still doesn't make the use of the Confederate war flag less offensive) but some people you know just want to keep using this flag of oppression and tyranny even though they know the offensive past. And you don't think that is selfish of them?

[CloakNDagger]

I don't have to force you to determine it to be equivalent, you have already admitted that it was. So if what the Confederacy did to slaves is equally bad to what the Nazi's did to Jewish people, why do you give people a pass for co-opting the Confederate battle flag and passing it off as something not offensive?

Because that is not the primary reason the North invaded.

[church_of_dog]

There is no way to humanely enslave someone. The mere act of slavery is inhumane. It doesn't make the person less human, but it treats them as less than a human.

You don't have to enslave someone to treat them as less than human, but if you turn someone into a slave, you are automatically treating them as an object that is owned, not a person.

This is the key that I think is being insufficiently emphasized here (here in this discussion). Slavery is not defined by the restraints put on a person, but by the psychological concept of a person being "ownable."

A prison situation has the restraint/control but it does NOT constitute being owned -- prison has a clear legal and ethical purpose -- either 1) to punish someone or 2) to punish them as well as to separate them from society for the protection of society.

But that person being punished still has all the legal and ethical rights *OF BEING HUMAN* even if they have lost some of the privileges of being out in society. The legal system in the US includes prisoners' rights*, and a recognition that such laws are necessary at least in part because the distinction between imprisonment and slavery is such an important one.

*Note: I am aware that the conditions in some if not most prisons are horrible and that not all prisoners' rights are sufficiently protected -- that is a problem that should be solved, but it does not void my point that such rights are important to legally exist.

As an aside, I do agree with CnD on one point, and that is that there are people who display the Confederate flag while believing they are not racist. However, both the cultural significance of the flag and the very concept of what *racist* means are culturally fluid. Words (and symbols) do indeed have meaning, but those meanings do sometimes change over time, and during the time that the change is occurring, I think there are indeed people who are using those words/symbols in one way while the technical or cultural meaning might be something quite different. I do think it's incumbent on people to be aware of this broader picture before they use contentious terms or symbols, but of course not everyone does this to my standards.

I happen to live in a very conservative enclave in a very liberal state (California) and I know people who adopt cultural symbols such as the confederate flag to represent "anti-government" or even "anti-liberals" without much thought at all as to what other meanings it might have to other people. There is a rebel/outlaw/yeehah-yahoo/anti-government right-wing culture that is quite distinct from the patriot/military/theocratic right-wing culture, and those symbols are part of how they distinguish themselves from each other.

I'm not sure if I agree with formergothardite that such ignorance is no less offensive, because I do think that intent matters at least somewhat, but I don't give people a complete pass on being unaware of all the various connotations of the symbols they appropriate. I'm just amazed, and not in a good way, at how knee-jerk people can be in choosing to identify themselves in particular cultural ways, without any real awareness of the history of their symbols nor of how those symbols are perceived by others. Have I contradicted myself sufficiently? :lol: Complex issues, to be sure.

[CloakNDagger]

This is the key that I think is being insufficiently emphasized here (here in this discussion). Slavery is not defined by the restraints put on a person, but by the psychological concept of a person being "ownable."

A prison situation has the restraint/control but it does NOT constitute being owned -- prison has a clear legal and ethical purpose -- either 1) to punish someone or 2) to punish them as well as to separate them from society for the protection of society.

But that person being punished still has all the legal and ethical rights *OF BEING HUMAN* even if they have lost some of the privileges of being out in society. The legal system in the US includes prisoners' rights*, and a recognition that such laws are necessary at least in part because the distinction between imprisonment and slavery is such an important one.

Indentured servanthood does not HAVE to be different. You may have "rights" in a modern prison, but you are certainly not free to go and you are actually continuing to be a financial drain on society. For non-violent crimes it would be far better for a judge to set a reasonable wage for the skills you have and compel you to work for someone (but have the right to return to some living quarters and to not be whipped, raped, etc.) until your debt is paid at which time you would be free once again.

Smoking or even distributing a plant (Marijuana or Cocaine?) shouldn't put you in prison for life (mostly blacks) or at all especially if you never hurt anyone in the process.

[formergothardite]

To me, co-opting an offensive symbol like the Confederate battle flag, completely ignoring the history of it and trying to make it stand freedom from oppression when it was created to oppress is offensive. How can we learn from history if people want to forget it or change it so that they can have pride in their heritage? It wasn't even that long ago that it was brought back from obscurity to be used as a racist symbol. There are people alive today who remember it being used by racists to try and scare black people into "staying in their place." I don't think it helps when people make up excuses for those who want to use it. Why do they cling to this symbol of oppression and tyranny? Why not choose something else? But most of the time they don't want to, they want to keep the flag with the history of oppression and racism.

[CloakNDagger]

Or they really, really want to secede again... the "Don't tread on me" flag is probably more appropriate, but more people understand the "Rebel" flag with regards to secession than the DTOM flag IMO. They don't like they way the Fed. Government is going and they'd rather their state separate. That's what I think most of the (thinking ?) people's Confederate Battle Flags symbolize I suspect. The teens - just plain old rebellion against "the system" whatever that is.

[formergothardite]

Instead of making excuses for using the flag, it would better to spread the true history of it. And for those who do know the history, but still want to pretend it stands for something else, they have absolutely no excuse. The Confederate flag isn't a symbol of rebellion or a fight against a tyrannical government, it is a symbol of oppression, tyranny and racism. That is what people need to be told and that is what it needs to be remembered as. The lives of all the slaves that suffered under the tyrannical Confederate government shouldn't be forgotten just because people can't be bothered to learn or believe the true history of that flag and what the Confederacy really stood for. It doesn't do justice to their memory to turn that flag into a representation of state rights or rebellion. And all the people who suffered when it was brought back from obscurity by racists to oppress people, it doesn't do justice to that part of history either.

So instead of having a thread where you quantify the suffering of slaves, talk about how bad the North was, and make excuses, why not just admit that there is absolutely no excuse in perpetuating the ignorance and white washing of history that has gone into trying to turn this flag into an unoffensive symbol? The ignorance needs to end, and making excuses won't end it.

[church_of_dog]

Indentured servanthood does not HAVE to be different. You may have "rights" in a modern prison, but you are certainly not free to go and you are actually continuing to be a financial drain on society. For non-violent crimes it would be far better for a judge to set a reasonable wage for the skills you have and compel you to work for someone (but have the right to return to some living quarters and to not be whipped, raped, etc.) until your debt is paid at which time you would be free once again.

Smoking or even distributing a plant (Marijuana or Cocaine?) shouldn't put you in prison for life (mostly blacks) or at all especially if you never hurt anyone in the process.

Of course you're not free to come and go when you're in prison -- but my whole point is that that is a physical constraint and not anything close to the concept of one human owning another human. Prisoners' rights laws ensure that one does not approach the other, because as a society we value that distinction. We understand and accept that some actions deserve punishment including constraints of physical freedom, and that sometimes a person needs to be kept from society for the safety of others, but we make such prisoners' rights laws specifically to ensure that those restrictions don't go anywhere near the concept of human beings being ownable by others.

I happen to agree with you about prison terms for nonviolent crimes (for the most part) but that's a different subject altogether and not really relevant to this discussion in my opinion,

[Fascinated]

While the idea that prisoners and slaves are even remotely similar is patently ridiculous, I will point out the obvious: most prisoners are incarcerated for an offense of some degree against the laws of the land. Most people sold and traded to slavery merely existed, with the 'wrong' colour skin.

[Mama Mia]

This is the key that I think is being insufficiently emphasized here (here in this discussion). Slavery is not defined by the restraints put on a person, but by the psychological concept of a person being "ownable."

A prison situation has the restraint/control but it does NOT constitute being owned -- prison has a clear legal and ethical purpose -- either 1) to punish someone or 2) to punish them as well as to separate them from society for the protection of society.

But that person being punished still has all the legal and ethical rights *OF BEING HUMAN* even if they have lost some of the privileges of being out in society. The legal system in the US includes prisoners' rights*, and a recognition that such laws are necessary at least in part because the distinction between imprisonment and slavery is such an important one.

*Note: I am aware that the conditions in some if not most prisons are horrible and that not all prisoners' rights are sufficiently protected -- that is a problem that should be solved, but it does not void my point that such rights are important to legally exist.

I agree, in theory, that prisoners do have, on paper, some rights that give them full personhood. Howeverr , in actual practice, I don't think that is so much the case. Even in small, seemingly counterproductive ways, prisons are structured to dehumanize people. Despite the constant memes regarding weight rooms and cable TV - which can also be true - there are the daily health and living and sanitation issues that's are completely unnecessary and just done to degrade. For example - a relative of mine was just in our local jail for a minor charge. There was one toilet , in an open area, for 40+ inmates. With the only water source on the top of the toilet tank. That seems like a small thing- until you think of the completely ridiculously unneeded disease spread through this minor humiliation tactic. And that's a tiny , minor thing in a very progressive area - not like the tent city work camps in 100+ heat in some states. Here's a good basic set of information on the system in the U.S. aclu.org/issues/prisoners-rights#current

As an aside, I do agree with CnD on one point, and that is that there are people who display the Confederate flag while believing they are not racist. However, both the cultural significance of the flag and the very concept of what *racist* means are culturally fluid. Words (and symbols) do indeed have meaning, but those meanings do sometimes change over time, and during the time that the change is occurring, I think there are indeed people who are using those words/symbols in one way while the technical or cultural meaning might be something quite different. I do think it's incumbent on people to be aware of this broader picture before they use contentious terms or symbols, but of course not everyone does this to my standards.

I happen to live in a very conservative enclave in a very liberal state (California) and I know people who adopt cultural symbols such as the confederate flag to represent "anti-government" or even "anti-liberals" without much thought at all as to what other meanings it might have to other people. There is a rebel/outlaw/yeehah-yahoo/anti-government right-wing culture that is quite distinct from the patriot/military/theocratic right-wing culture, and those symbols are part of how they distinguish themselves from each other.

I live in a very liberal part of the same state, but quite a few of my former classmates, extended family moved to those conservative enclaves because they are cheaper - and some became exactly the type you talk about. There are even a couple of young people in the very liberal areas like that. I know exactly what you mean when you describe them. It seems to be very hard for people from the south / Bible Belt though to understand that there is that subset of rebel / anti- government / libertarian who will do incredibly stupid shit like post the confederate flag, but not really have the slightest clue about the history. They also tend to have lots of other ideas that don't mesh with the religious / conservative base. Like they generally don't care about marriage equality - unless they are of the " homosexual derogatory word are gross" type. Otherwise they don't care. But don't come near their guns damn it! Or their weed! And the vast majority were on some sort of government benefits when younger - but now that they moved to a cheaper area and are getting by - screw those welfare leaches! Unless they aren't getting by, then those benefits are a okay again. I haven't seen any of the ones I know in that group post anything regarding the confederate flag, one way or the other - but I wouldn't be shocked if they did.

I'm not sure if I agree with formergothardite that such ignorance is no less offensive, because I do think that intent matters at least somewhat, but I don't give people a complete pass on being unaware of all the various connotations of the symbols they appropriate. I'm just amazed, and not in a good way, at how knee-jerk people can be in choosing to identify themselves in particular cultural ways, without any real awareness of the history of their symbols nor of how those symbols are perceived by others. Have I contradicted myself sufficiently? :lol: Complex issues, to be sure.

Truthfully, I don't think most of them could name the century the civil war took place. Or understand half the words in your very well thought out post. I do think people should become more educated about these things , and with the Internet there is no excuse not to, but I think people really overestimate the general level of background knowledge many people possess. Remember, somewhere around 20% of the U.S population reads at a less than fifth grade level. That's one out of every five people you see. If that one out of five didn't already pick up information regarding the confederacy and slavery and the issues leading up to the civil war - they are very likely to go with whatever symbols go along with their beliefs without digging deeper. And in some areas, with some groups, the confederate flag does seem to mean " woo hoo, fuck the government, I'm a rebel!"

[church_of_dog]

Thanks, Mama Mia. I suppose you're right about the prison situation -- sadly, it seems my thoughts were based more on conceptual ideals than on reality. I also agree with you about the attitudes of those in the rural conservative areas -- I love living here, for many reasons in addition to the low cost of living, but if I had kids I would have a real dilemma because the school system just isn't up to par, although they do the best they can with so few students and the attendant low funding. I can only imagine what they are taught about the civil war. (Incidentally, I was educated in one of the best school districts in the country, and I don't know that my education about the true issues behind the war was really complete either. Maybe it just wasn't my focus, or maybe culturally things are just really biased, and in which direction depends on the local subculture.)

[halcionne]

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.

The show is Finding Your Roots, and season 3 is delayed because Ben Affleck didn't want his slave-holding ancestors to be discussed. There's been some controversy around it that I only caught snippets of here: http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv ... n-3-plans/

[halcionne]

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.

But slavery is more than that. This definition could describe incarceration or kidnapping. Slavery = humans for sale as property and forced to work. The only other form of slavery that comes to my mind is white slavery, which is an obsolete term for human trafficking and is also deplorable. Just like whatever other forms of slavery that exist but didn't pop into my mind just now. Incarceration and even indentured servitude are distinctly different from slavery. Nobody is owned or objectified, forced to work without pay, or born into it and, in most cases, expected to die in it. It's somewhat hyperbolic to equate slavery with incarceration, imo.

Sorry for derailing, but it was bothering me since CnD first mentioned it and Curious asked the same question I was sort of afraid to (because it doesn't really matter how CnD defines slavery and hairsplitting potentially trivializes actual slavery).

Something else. "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."

Flying or displaying the Confederate flag is a racist act. There may be some perfectly nice people who do it, and don't know (or flat out deny) that it's a racist act. I posted a video from Jay Smooth in the last big thread about the Civil War--I'll try and find it again. Basically, it's more productive to focus on how the act is racist, not necessarily the person (Of course some people are racist, but it's beside the point when we're concerned with a particular behavior). Kind of like scolding a child by saying "you did a bad thing" and not "you're a bad boy." So, I can see why you might feel defensive if you feel that you or your friends or family have been called racist. I have reacted defensively when I got called out for being wrong; it's human nature. It's difficult to hear criticism and separate yourself enough to be able to evaluate it and try to learn from it and do better.

Here's the video:

[bBvideo 560,340:3a75k7jf]

[/bBvideo]

[RosyDaisy]

I think a trip to Angola prison for a few days might change his mind.