Jump to content
IGNORED

Confederate Flag


DaysAgo

Recommended Posts

CnD, for someone who came here because of the VF fallout, you really haven't said a lot about it. You seem more intent on beating a dead horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 382
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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).

See Webster's (an abolitionist I believe) 1828 dictionary definition of slavery: http://sorabji.com/1828/words/s/slavery.html

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.

There HAS to be intent for it to ACTUALLY be 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.

I don't mind criticism and learning on a personal level. I find the presumptions about people like those I know to be way over the top

Here's the video:

[bBvideo 560,340:20r5h12h]

[/bBvideo]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There HAS to be intent for it to ACTUALLY be a racist act.

No it doesn't. It's how the other person/people interpret the act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when I was a child and innocently saying a term I'm not going to repeat here, in your mind CnD, it wasn't racist anymore suddenly because I didn't know what it meant? My parents did not react that way, they quickly told me that it was racist, offensive and that I should never say it.

I do understand that some people really don't know, but them not knowing doesn't make the Confederate flag suddenly not offensive. And if someone does know but continues to use this flag, then yes, I am going to judge them as being extremely selfish people. It isn't like there aren't other options. They aren't being forced to take flag with that was created to defend a racist, tyrannical country and pretend that it stands for freedom from the federal government. The perception of the Confederacy is often influenced by this idea that the Confederate battle flag stands for freedom and rebellion. That is a disservice to history. The Confederacy stood for oppression, tyranny and the cornerstone of that country was slavery. That doesn't need to be glossed over. And when people start trying to act like there is an excuse for knowingly flying the Confederate battle flag, that is glossing over history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably will not register but anyway.

CnD I am not from your country I have found this thread very interesting and informative but would like to tell you that coming into this subject quite uninformed, your arguments and opinions have only convinced me that when Europeans or other cultures roll their eyes about Americans, You are the type of American they mean.

Enrages me that this is the case when I know you happen to be the minority, just with the loudest most annoying voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you prefer a 200 year old definition over the modern one?

From Webster 1828:

SLA'VERY, n. [see Slave.]

1. Bondage; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another. Slavery is the obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract of consent of the servant. Slavery may proceed from crimes, from captivity or from debt. Slavery is also voluntary or involuntary; voluntary, when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another; involuntary, when he is placed under the absolute power of another without his own consent. Slavery no longer exists in Great Britain, not in the northern states of America.

2. The offices of a slave; drudgery.

The bolded is obsolete and refers, I suppose, to debtors' prisons, indentured servitude, and the like. My opinion is that knowing what we know now about the horrors of chattel slavery (chattel being a key component of today's definition), I feel like it's a little bit disingenuous to continue to lump all of these forms of "slavery" together. And FWIW, denoting chattel slavery as racial slavery makes me a little uncomfortable. But maybe that's just me. :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I guess I don't understand why you are insisting on using offensive, over-the-top, antiquated, baggage filled - and most importantly - inaccurate terms like

" slavery" and " indentured servitude" to describe what could be a perfectly reasonable sort of alternative sentencing for people who have committed crimes?

Yes, the prison system is awful. Yes, the war on drugs in particular in ridiculous. Yes, it is , mostly, a huge waste of human life and taxpayer money to put any but violent criminal sbehind bars for long stretches of time.

Sentencing someone who committed a property crime to work off that crime so the victim gets restitution is fine.if it's not a property crime with a specific victim that can benefit, sentencing to community service is always a good alternative. I doubt there are a lot of situations where I specific individual wants or could use the long term, direct, work of someone who stold something from them, but hey, why not if the situation made sense. I just don't get the insistence to calling this slavery. If someone is free to come and go and make their own life decisions when they aren't at work - they aren't slaves. They are workers. It might be work compelled by the government as an alternative to the lesser freedom of jail after committing a crime, but it's still just work. And the person is still not the property of another. So why do you want to call it by an offensive and inaccurate term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.