1529197155 Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 Originally posted by seeking so by your rational, theres nothing wrong with germany continuing to use the swastika as its national symbol? that jews, russians, italians and gypseys shouldnt feel any alienation, sorrow, or anger when they see the flag flying above their government buildings? that they will be able to remove the fact that under its rule, 13 million people were murdered? 100 million africans died or were murdered during the slave trade, dont tell me the flag that the slave owners chose to represent themselves, doesnt still carry that debt on its back. seeking 100 million? there are only about 300 million people in the US today. if there were 100 million who were killed, what about the living. they are called a minority because there aren't as many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.T Boy Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 Originally posted by Smart ? Why is Nazi paraphenallia illegal over there? : well the german people are so ashamed of the past they dont want to see that ever again. aaaaaaaaaand there are swastikas painted all over the streets of italy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 Originally posted by T.T Boy well the german people are so ashamed of the past they dont want to see that ever again. aaaaaaaaaand there are swastikas painted all over the streets of italy. Right, and in America we plaster the Rebel flag on the back window of the pick up and shout "The South Shall Rise Again!!!" Also, it is fair to point out that in countries like the ROI and UK the rebel flag is seen as just that, a symbol of defiance, as opposed to a symbol of oppression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodice_ripper Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 Originally posted by Smart Also, it is fair to point out that in countries like the ROI and UK the rebel flag is seen as just that, a symbol of defiance, as opposed to a symbol of oppression. I think its becoming that in many places, because unlike the swastika, its pretty easy to see that the people under it weren't any worse than their opponents. The civil war wasn't really about the slaves at all..................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 why don't you stick to telling people how they don't know anything about your own country On the deepest level the war of seccession was the battle between an outdated and corrupt econimic system vs. the birth of the industrial revolution (YEAH LUDDITES!)... Also, on a bit more surface level, it was a war to determine the rights of states to choose their own laws and not be controlled by some fat cats in Washington, the 'powder keg' issue? SLAVERY! Just because you all got old enough to finally comprehend and be taught the OTHER reasons that led up to the Civil War, don't be so arrogant as to assume slavery had nothing to do with it. The slavery issue was pivotal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodice_ripper Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 Originally posted by Smart why don't you stick to telling people how they don't know anything about your own country No. damn that was easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 i guess its a good thing you didnt need to know american history to get into art school...................the second time around, huh? dam that was easier........:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alabama Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 that dude with the flaming beer tower looks cool as shit!!!! I'd love to kick it with that guy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mafIAkilla Posted August 22, 2002 Share Posted August 22, 2002 Originally posted by Smart why don't you stick to telling people how they don't know anything about your own country On the deepest level the war of seccession was the battle between an outdated and corrupt econimic system vs. the birth of the industrial revolution (YEAH LUDDITES!)... Also, on a bit more surface level, it was a war to determine the rights of states to choose their own laws and not be controlled by some fat cats in Washington, the 'powder keg' issue? SLAVERY! Just because you all got old enough to finally comprehend and be taught the OTHER reasons that led up to the Civil War, don't be so arrogant as to assume slavery had nothing to do with it. The slavery issue was pivotal... this war was fought over states rights to govern themselves.....quoting abraham lincol to the house of representatives on jan 12,1848 "any people,anywhere,being inclined,and having the power,have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form one that suits them better".....northerners owned just as many slaves as southerners did,giving them a vested interest in slavery. do you think they would have waged a war over slavery if that in turn meant that their slaves would be emancipated?i think not..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 Originally posted by mafIAkilla this war was fought over states rights to govern themselves.....quoting abraham lincol to the house of representatives on jan 12,1848 "any people,anywhere,being inclined,and having the power,have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form one that suits them better"..... Execpt the confederate states right? I don't think that quote means what you think it does... But if you think you can use it to somehow prove that Lincoln approved of the Confederacy or slavery, then, by all means... The Lincoln Quote of the week: "The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the masters of your own negroes." Originally posted by mafIAkilla northerners owned just as many slaves as southerners did,giving them a vested interest in slavery. do you think they would have waged a war over slavery if that in turn meant that their slaves would be emancipated?i think not..... You think WRONG... the northern states didn't own slaves on ANYWHERE near the scale of the southern plantation owners... You obviously know nothing about the war and absolutely nothing about the 50 or so years that led up to it... sit down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissmyass#1 Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 http://www.whfs.com/images/archives/fellspoint2001/sunday/beertruck.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 I really ought to know better than to get into this debate, but here goes: First of all, very few Soutrherners owned slaves. They were very expensive, costing between $800 to $1,500 for a healthy young man. Women and children went for less, because their ability to produce was less. The average wage for a working-class white man in 1850 was about a dollar a day. So I doubt very many white families owned many slaves. Some of the larger farms that owned none might have rented them out from larger plantations, though. Slavery was extremely inefficient. The owner was required to feed them even in the winter when there was considerably less work to be done. The average working life of a slave was less than thirty years. The Industrial Revolution solved this dilemma. Northerners just fired their workers in the winter and let them fend for themselves. By the way, although you'll never read it in any history book printed today, Jefferson Davis FREED THE SLAVES FIRST. And Abraham Lincoln only freed the slaves in CONFEDERATE-HELD AREAS. The black slaves in the Union states were still slaves, and remained so until Reconstruction started. Lincoln's intention in freeing the slaves in the South was to deprive the Confederacy of it's black labor force. When the slaves made their way north, they were rounded up and held in Freedmen's Bureau compounds, and not permitted to roam freely. Davis attempted to stop the flow of black labor to the north by proclaiming all slaves free in the South and requiring Southern plantation owners, etc., to pay wages, but few agreed and fewer still ever freed any slaves. The Civil War was only called the Civil War in the NORTH. Down here in the South, all my life, I have heard that unfortunate conflict called "The War Between the States." Lately an old name has been resurrected among re-enactors and the like--they call it "The War of Northern Aggression." Essentially, Lincoln was America's Lenin. He successfully gutted the Constitution and made the Federal government superior to that of the sovereign States. Prior to 1865, each State government was sovereign unto itself, and except as provided for in the Constitution, conducted it's own business. After the WBTS, the South was politically neutered, and essentially, the Democratic Party (THE PARTY OF SLAVERY) was completely neutralized. Only the Republicans and Radical Republicans were permitted to vote or run for office. No former Confederate was permitted to vote for ten years, until 1875, when Reconstruction was ended. In Texas, the Democratic Party re-seized the reins of power in the very first election, in 1876. They promptly voted the hated Yankee occupier, Gen. E.J. Davis out of office, but he and his Radical Republicans refused. A three-day battle ensued on the grounds of the Capitol at Austin (the bullets are still embedded in many of the walls of the Capitol building.) The Republicans wired Washington D.C. for help, and troops, but Washington refused. Finally, Gen. E.J. Davis and his men surrendered, and were marched out of town at bayonet point by the Texas Militia. Crowds thronged the streets, many of the men wore their Confederate uniforms. One of the first orders of business was suppressing the Ku Klux Klan. Wearing a mask in public is still illegal here. During the hours of darkness, it is OPEN SEASON on anybody attempting to harm you or your property. Everybody was forbidden to carry side arms, but rifles and shotguns were (and are) still legal to carry wherever you go in Texas except schools. The new Constitution placed enormous power in the hands of County Judges (essentially the "mayor" of a county,) and their legislative body, the County Commisioner's Court. This prevented "Yankee" influences from dominating small, sparsely populated counties in remote places. We still use that same Constitution in Texas today, but it has been amended over 350 times. Governor Gen. E.J. Davis was the last Republican to serve as a Texas governor for 120 years. There was not another Republican governor until Governor Bill Clements in 1986. It was said, that when Governor Clements was elected in 1986, Texas "turned it's back on the Confederacy, and re-joined the Union." That was only sixteen years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 well KaBar, I think you missed out on the broader topic of the confedrate flag but... as far as it goes... there are a couple historical issues you have going against you... The Abolitionist movement started in the 1700's in New England but over the years it spread, haphazzardly as ideas are wont to do... by the 1820's there was enough tension between the abolistionists and anti-abolitionists, AND, enough states had weighed in that basically the US was in a stalemate, half were 'free' states and half were 'slave' states... All of this was casual until Missouri gained enough territory to actually become a state, and no matter which way they sided it would throw the sweet sweet balance to the wind (but for the record they were going 'slave')... so, in a flurry of other activity, war reparations for Tejas, Maine becomes a state, seems like Kansas played a role (but that may have been Dred Scot a few years later, forgive my drunken memory...), and others a NEW balance was achieved, and it became Federal law in 1820 that no slaves should be owned past 36'30"N latitude... the Miserable (Missouri) Compromise is often referred to as the Rule of 36'30"N... ANYWHO, 36'30" was struck down as unconstitutional in 1854 (see Kansas-Nebraska act), still the anti-abolitionist south and the abolitionist north were both FIRMLY established before Lincoln even stepped into the national arena... AND... Jefferson Davis wasn't even the TRUE president of the Confederacy, ahem, Alexander Stephens, and then I'm pretty sure they tried to give it to some Georgian named Cobb (but it could have been Merriwether) I'm sorry.. what are we arguing about again? OH YEAH.... The Union - largely made up by Abolitionist states ("Free States") Except Virginia who later joined the Confedracy The Confederacy - ENTIRELY made up of "Slave states" I find it mind numbing to argue the political differences (though many) between the northern Republican agenda and the Southern Federalist agenda, though some points should be blatantly obvious... AND THEN... your narrative leads to events of the reconstruction but... I think this thread has meandered so far afield at this point that we should at least settle hash from before and including the War of Succession (which is the 'gentlemanly' name for it in Dixie) before we move on to the awful events of the reconstruction, which to a large extent can be attributed to personal greed (carpetbaggers and 'yankee trusts')... But please, speak to the primary issue at hand as well. What does the 'symbol' represent to you and is it appropriate on the flagpole of a state legislature building? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 damn KaBar, you changed your post and now I'm ll lost... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intangible Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 Originally posted by Smart you idiot, a flag is not a 'flag'... a flag, EVERY flag, is a visual embodiment of a movement or an idea. I thought we stopped around here....:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 ^no, that was where we turned... I don't think anybody could cook up a good counter to that so... now it's on about wether the civil war was about slavery or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intangible Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 oh ok thanks for catching me up....so if it wasnt about slavery then what was it about??...angry drunk white people who didnt want to pick cotton themselves, let what they owned go and file a "loss"...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 Originally posted by KaBar The average wage for a working-class white man in 1850 was about a dollar a day. So I doubt very many white families owned many slaves. in EITHER the north OR south, so let's just wash this idea that everyone had slaves from our heads, focus on the facts of the abolitionist movement from it's birth. The non-slave-owning majorities in these states spoke out for 50, even 70 years before their southern peers would even hear their arguments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intangible Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 preach it braddah smart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 but I'm sayin... DOH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 i just like hearing intelligent people speak their mind......whether i agree with smart or kabar or anyone else....the fact remains is that i just learned more about that time period and i thank you both....good show chaps... still, unless your the dukes of hazard, lose the flag..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Canadiano Posted August 23, 2002 Share Posted August 23, 2002 unless your the dukes of hazzard? fuck that, man. i'm telling you, straight up, the south should be proud of a lot of their history, and should be glad that they have a flag to distinguish themselves from the rest of the states. I see nothing wrong with some confederate flags flying high on top of the Georgia Dome, or the Capitol building of some state. Everyone knows they are American, so why shouldn't they respect their heritage? Living in Canada, I don't know too much of all this, but from the books I've read, from the television and movies I've watched, the typical Southern gentile looks a really cool, noble character. One shouldn't look to the bad when it comes to the flag. What normal person talks about the love they have for their country, then backs it up with past genocides that have been committed? Rather, they will talk about the beautiful land, the urban landscapes, the overall pleasant character of the people. The flag is a part of that, for anyone. I know a vegan "hippie" who loved to tell people that he loves the environment. He is the same person who would tell me that agriculture sucks, and that we should go back to the hunter-gatherer system. He loooooved the environment (:rolleyes: ), yet he worked for Starbucks at the foodcourt of a giant corporate building. He once told me that he wanted to burn the flag. I couldn't push him, punch him, anything, because he is a frail boy. Instead, I never talked to him again. This fucking hypocrite walked through Quebec City (during that summit) making fun of our soldiers, calling them idiots. My friend, apparently, responded by saying that they are the protectors of our nation. This dumbfuck hippie said that they are not at all, and that he is far more of a protector (smoking weed and talking about the latest Suzuki book is how he protects). I HATE PEOPLE WHO DON'T RESPECT THEIR HISTORY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar Posted August 24, 2002 Share Posted August 24, 2002 Don't confuse argument with advocacy The Confederate flag represents the Lost Cause of states rights. If idiot racists the nation over want to adopt it as their "symbol" I can't help that. Suppose the racist right adopted the jelly bean as their symbol--would you stop eating jelly beans? It's silly. The Confederate battle flag has a lot of emotional baggage that goes along with it, but the "real" flag of the Confederacy was the Stars and Bars (this is the Confederate flag that has a field of blue with a circle of eleven stars and three lengthwise stripes--two red stripes separated by a white stripe, or the "Bonny Blue Flag" a solid field of blue with a single white star. (This same design also flew over Texas earlier, during the War for Texas Independence.) The Confederate battle flag has another version with a field of white added to it. Nowhere during the War Between the States did the Confederate forces fly a flag similar to the "modern Confederate Flag." The modern flag did not then exist in the form we see it today. The actual Confederate battle flag was square. What does it mean today? I guess it means different things to different people. I don't know anybody born in the South who actually flies a modern Confederate flag today. One of my neighbor's kids had a rebel flag sticker on the back window of his pick-up truck and the black neighbor who lives across the street from him (whose wife works for the Sheriff's Department as a clerk) tried to get him arrested on a trumped-up charge of attempted burglary of a motor vehicle. The black neighbor's attitude was every bit as racist and bigoted as any redneck I ever met. Racist and racial bigotry are by no means limited to one particular racial group, and it is just as ugly, regardless of who espouses it, and whatever their lame excuse is. One of the coolest versions I ever saw of the modern rebel flag design substituted the green, black and red colors of the Black Nationalist movement for the red, white and blue of the rebel flag. I thought that was a creative idea. I also have met two black guys who are members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, one whose great-great-whatever grandfather was a white Confederate, and the other whose African-American ancestor served in a South Carolina militia as part of an infantry company alongside his white owner. It wasn't voluntary, apparently, but there is nothing in the charter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that says anything about "voluntary." Plenty of Confederate soldiers were unhappy draftees. Just parroting the "Southern whites are all racist dogs" and "the Civil War was all about slavery" is bullshit. It's revisionist history, and superficial. Yes, the South was "for" slavery. But slavery as an institution was doomed no matter what--the cotton harvester was coming, and it marginalized millions of black Southern agricultural workers. Slavery was about economics and technology. It had a very real human toll, but it doesn't make the Confederacy an authoritarian dictatorship like Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union. There was no attempt to exterminate black people. As unpleasant as many Northerners find it, both white and black Southerners share Southern culture, speech patterns, musical traditions and so forth. When I was in the Marine Corps, I often gathered together with other Marines from the South, of all races, and we would reminisce about Southern food, or weather, or sports, or whatever. Yankees don't like grits, or fried okra, or collard greens and fatback. "Fried chicken", now a national dish, was once called SOUTHERN fried chicken. Yankees didn't fry their chicken, they roasted, broiled or baked it. These are, of course AFRICAN-AMERICAN dishes, because the cooks of the South were black. And the white folks learned to appreciate the recipes brought to Southern kitchens by black cooks and chefs. I never met a white person from the North that had ever tasted collard greens and pork fatback who wasn't a Southern immigrant. Resist the temptation to sum up the racial problems of the South in a neat little tidy explanation. It doesn't work. (For instance, we are now beginning to see serious black racism against Asian and Hispanic immigrants who are beginning to outnumber blacks. There is real anger and resentment there. Where is the ACLU and the NAACP? I'm not hearing anybody from the NAACP call for racial tolerance for Asians and Hispanics, nor any condemnation of racist, violent crimes by blacks against these other minority groups. BUT THEY SHOULD.) I know a number of African-American women who are very angry because white women are marrying successful black men. When I hear "Those bitches ought to stick to their own kind!" come out of a black woman's mouth, I am reminded of the white women voicing racism of a generation or two earlier. NO EXCUSES. Racism is racism. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As much as it may displease the liberals, I went to integrated Houston schools from the 8th grade on. TODAY, in Chicago and New York and other Northern cities there is a degree of segregation that is greater than ANYWHERE IN THE SOUTH since about 1965. We have learned to live together and appreciate one another for who we are. Can the North say that? No, it cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted August 24, 2002 Share Posted August 24, 2002 you might be suprised to learn that the jellybean had never been associated with a corrupt and racist political system until Regan... The fact is, the confederate flag is fully and inexhoribly associated with a system of human rights abuse, and with KaBar's facts I must assume even MORE SO today... I have lived in 2 places known as 'the birthplace of the klan' in my life and from that experiance, I find it obvious that, for whatever reason, the Klan has adopted the confederate flag and also linked their own movement with it's symbology... Also, the perpetuation of segregated society in the south through the 50's created a certain political group who also used this flag, and the states rights arguments, to perpetuate a corrupt system associated with human rights abuses... I have visited the old 'colored school' in my town, it's exactly the same in everyway as the old city high school, except the scale of everything is reduced by about 20%... the room size, wall height, desk size... everything the same but smaller. Black people aren't any smaller than white people on the average, you know... sitting in those desks is like visiting the kindergarten... No matter what you think the confederate battle flag represented upon it's creation, though it wasn't born from the most idyllic circumstances, the political/symbological perversion over the years has stained it's reputation forever... Also undeniable is that, since it's creation it has continually, AND singularly, been associated with a particular type of human rights abuse... this is why 'racism' is the knee jerk reaction, BECAUSE IT'S TRUE... for the same reason stereotypes are stereotypical, racists are always gonna be distinguishable by this particular issue of race hate. The symbols they use to express pride in their particular brand of hate have absolutely no reason atop a pole on the state capital! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intangible Posted August 24, 2002 Share Posted August 24, 2002 You guys and your debates...just knock it off, Smart let us get back to the bear jokes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Canadiano Posted August 24, 2002 Share Posted August 24, 2002 Originally posted by Smart No matter what you think the confederate battle flag represented upon it's creation, though it wasn't born from the most idyllic circumstances, the political/symbological perversion over the years has stained it's reputation forever... so you're saying that it would be perverse of my mother to wear that particular sari i had mentioned earlier (the one with the gold swastikas all over it)? I don't think so. She is a very proud and traditional Indo-Canadian who will never forget where she came from. It is unfortunate she decided not to wear it (my yuppie brother had a lot to do with that decision). The confederate flag is all about southern pride, and I believe should be flown by all proud southerners if they wish. KaBar made it clear that even the south is losing a bit of it's distinguishable culture, ie the fried chicken, etc. There needs to be something, like a flag, to represent themselves, even if it is just a casually thrown on sticker on the back of a truck. Hell, there is a flag for every country. Every state in the US has a flag, as well as every province in Canada. Families in Europe have Coats of Arms, and the list goes on. I say they definately should fly that flag high all around the government buildings. People have to be educated. I don't believe it is proper for some angry minorities to want that flag removed because of their lack of historical knowledge. Hell, perhaps this would do a better job of uniting the races in the south. If I were a politician down there, I'd say that the flag must be taken back from those skinheads who abuse it's beauty. You know, like when women try to 'take back the night' from the rapists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ctrl+alt+del Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 Originally posted by mental invalid i....good show chaps... i just saw a lady wearing purple shorts under chaps at tony romas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 Originally posted by Canadiano so you're saying that it would be perverse of my mother to wear that particular sari i had mentioned earlier (the one with the gold swastikas all over it)? I don't think so. No, I'm saying it's wrong for her to wear the Luftwaffe uniform she has in the closet... and you're either very very dumb, or you think everyone else is... How can you expect to draw a nonexistant parallel... this is like me suggesting that any flag containing red, white and blue with some stripes and some stars is equal to the confederate flag. FUCK the confederate flag, there is NO DENYING the associations I have pointed out, anyone who flys that flag supports those belief systems along with whatever misguided justification you want to tack on... WHAT LACK OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE??? It's the history of these minorities... I'm sorry if you don't know anything about what your great great grandfather did for a living, but I assure you that if he was an actual slave you would know. In fact, Canadiano, it's not even YOUR history, you're not from the south, you don't know what your talking about. You telling me how things are or ought to be is like Jah telling Boddice Ripper that Dublin is in Ulster... The confederate states had their chance and blew it, the war is over, the south will NOT rise again... And for all KaBar's talk of marine comeradery, I know a 4 tour veteran if Vietnam, Marine Recon, who has repeatedly told me with pride in his eyes how he and his buddies kept an all southern all white squad, by hook or crook, it's not all hugs and kisses in the service... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ctrl+alt+del Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 Originally posted by Smart the south will NOT rise again... lets hope so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el nervo Posted August 25, 2002 Share Posted August 25, 2002 you guys need a fucking break this tread should of ended with. who gives a fuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.