Confederate Flag OK, Swastika is not, why the double standards?

[socalover]

I am amazed at the media outrage at Prince Harry's despicable swastika attire but yet at the same time, some of these folks have been telling blacks in the south and other minorities to "get over it", "it just a flag", "It's just a symbol", "it's the pride of the south", when discussing the confederate flag. Why don't the same rule, "It's just a symbol", apply for the Swastika?

Prince Harry apologizes for Nazi costume but won't visit death camp

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-01-13-prince-harry_x.htm?csp=34

[DrWeird]

1. I think people should apologize for the confederate flag too.

Fuck 'em both.

[Clark2008]

79. Which proves you don't much about the confederate flag

But, then again, most Southerners don't either.

It was about state rights. Granted, unfortunately, states rights included slavery.

In any case, the Stars and Bars was the battle flag, not the Confederate flag.

This is the Confederate flag:



Don't see much of that, do ya?

[Taxloss]

2. The media outrage over Harry's costume is

primarily in the UK, where the Confederate flag has little or no resonance beyond being something from the Dukes of Hazzard.

And the quick response to anyone saying "get over it" should be "how about swastikas?"

[sweetheart]

31. In short: "Living Memory"

Symbols lose their direct significance with time, and the confederate
flag has lost much of its, whereas there is a generation in the UK that
still remembers the swaztika as the symbol of the enemy of the very
way of life they enjoy today. That said, it is not living memory 2
generations down like with prince harry... and, IMO, part of his
choice was advised that it was not living memory for himself or any
of his friends or parents.

[Taxloss]

75. True, but an Afrika Korps uniform is intensely tasteless for a man ...

... who may become head of the Commonwealth. It also shows an appalling lack of judgement, and is embarrassing to the country. Imagine how this is playing in Germany!

Also, I'd mention that the Confederate flag has never been an issue in the UK for the obvious reasons.

[VPStoltz]

3. The Confederate flag...

should be banned and made illegal to display. It is my understanding that in every other conflict that resulted in one nation (or part of a nation) successfully dominated another (or the other) insisted on making the flag of the loser illegal. The Japanese had to change their flag after WWII. The German's also changed their flag. What is with those freaks in the south that they can't accept that they lost the war. The fact that the flag was not banned at the end of the war might have something to do with the Union trying to play nice with the South. There were innumerable other concessions made to the south and we are all suffering the consequences to this day.

[Blue Wally]

9. Tell me how the Japanese flag was changed???

There are two flags. The national flag is just the red "meatball" on a white field, same now as it was in WWII. The flag with the sun's rays on it was the naval battleflag and I think the sea portion of the current Japanese Self Defense Force still uses that flag.

[DulceDecorum]

16. Care to discuss the US and UK navy use of the Jolly Roger?

Why do these two nations fly a PIRATE FLAG?

The jolly roger is associated with "Old Roger,"
a known nickname of the devil himself.

What is going on?
Who is REALLY in charge of the Coalition?
Judeo-Christians want to know.

[One_Life_To_Give]

68. Which US Ship flys the Jolly Roger?

US ships should be flying the National Ensign, and if a commisioned ship would also fly the Union Jack

[DulceDecorum]

93. Well, since you asked nicely, USS Kidd.

KIDD's first voyage was one of some notoriety. Under the command of Cdr. Allan B. Roby, the destroyer moved across New York Harbor for delivery to the Brooklyn Naval Shipyards . . . flying the skull and crossbones of the Jolly Roger high from the foremast. The edition of TIME magazine that week carried a photo of KIDD, announcing that it had been one hundred years since the Jolly Roger had flown in New York Harbor. The crew quickly adopted the pirate Captain Kidd as their mascot, hiring a local cartoonist to paint the famed buccaneer's image high of the forward smokestack.
http://www.usskidd.com/usskiddhistory661.html

Here are but a few instances of the US and UK military proudly displaying the skull and crossbones.
(Current White House not included.)
I don't have another photo of a US ship flying the Jolly Roger flag at hand,
but please accept that the Jolly Roger makes an appearance
on vessels of the US Navy.


http://www.subshipstore.com/fsddtshirt1.htm

The skull as an emblem occurs frequently in Christianity, perhaps inspired by Golgotha, the Place of the Skull, where Christ was crucified. The Christian concept of Christ there dying on the cross on behalf of his believers so they might enter heaven is the message of hope in death. This would explain the crossed bones.
Skulls are associated with such penitent saints as St Francis of Assisi, St Jerome and St Mary Magdalene. When included in depictions of them the skull may have a cross placed nearby to warn sinners of the brevity of life.

The next connection to be made is with the pirate flag, the Jolly Roger. This name may be from the joli rouge, which was the red flag which pirates flew to warn ships they must surrender and that refusal would mean no mercy shown. The origin of the red flag may lie with the Knights Templars, the supreme Christian fighting force from the Crusades who did have fighting ships. Outlaw ships which did not have the spiritual motivation of the Templars – just their ferocity – kept the images. Later on, black was also used as the background colour.
Interestingly, groups of the Knights Templars were offered asylum in parts of medieval Scotland. The Templars were ruthlessly suppressed in 1307 by King Phillip IV of France and Pope Clement V with false accusations, arrests, torture and executions. On the eve of the suppression the entire Templar fleet vanished from the port of La Rochelle, together with a vast fortune which was never found. The Templars and their missing fleet came to be viewed as pirates. The Templars looked for refuge in various places, including Scotland, where Robert the Bruce offered them asylum in return for their help against the English King Edward II. They may have helped him at Bannockburn. There are Templar graves in Scotland dating back to the 14th century. Templars’ bodies had the legs removed and the bones lie crossed.

A third associated strand comes with freemasonry which uses the skull and crossbones as a symbol of mortality. In one layer of initiation the candidate is lowered into a representation of a grave, which has within it a skull and crossbones. The Stuarts in Scotland were very strong on freemasonry.
By the 18th century, the skull and crossbones was a symbol with a feared reputation. The flag changed and the symbols too, the crossbones sometimes being replaced by swords and sometimes with added symbols such as hourglasses.
http://bbc.net.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/makhist4_prog3a.shtml

Pirate Flags: In popular fiction all pirates flew the jolly roger - a skull above crossed bones on a black background. However, this special flag was used only by British and British-American pirates from about 1700 to 1725. Other pirates attacked either under their own ruler's flag or under the flag of the prince issuing their privateering commission. By flying a national flag, pirates made a symbolic statement (often false) that the attack was legal under that country's laws.
http://www.fotw.us/flags/pirates.html
The Jolly Roger is the traditional flag of European and American pirates, envisioned today as a skull over crossed bones (see skull and cross bones), on a black field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolly_Roger

THE UNITED STATES' OFFICIAL USE OF THE PIRATE FLAG.

After the defeat (1692) of the French fleet by the Dutch and English, France commissioned privateers, who preyed upon English commerce. In the American War of Independence and in the War of 1812 American privateersmen captured hundreds of prizes. The Confederate States issued letters of marque to the last privateers in history, but the Union blockade limited their effectiveness. In attempting to curb the abuses of privateering, nations required that captures be condemned in prize courts and that commissions (in restricted number) be granted only in the name of the sovereign. Privateersmen were free of naval discipline, and their desire for prize often led them to make no distinction between friendly and enemy shipping, to violate the rules of war, and to indulge in lawlessness after the conclusion of peace. These abuses led to the abolition of privateering by the Declaration of Paris (1856). This declaration does not prohibit the creation of voluntary navies consisting of private vessels under the control of a state, such as those used in World War II in the evacuation from Dunkirk.

Privateers helped the colonies against Britain in the Revolutionary War in America (1775-1783). On March 18, 1776, the Second Continental Congress authorized privateers. This action was taken after the British Parliament had prohibited all trade with the colonies and authorized seizure of their ships. George Washington was part owner of at least one privateer. Colonial privateers captured about 600 British ships.

From 1798 to 1801, the United States authorized privateers to seize French vessels, because many American ships were being taken by warships of republican France. In the War of 1812, American privateers seized 1,345 British ships. Some became pirates after the war. In 1856, the United States refused to sign the Treaty of Paris outlawing privateering because it feared it might need privateers to support its weak navy.

During the American Civil War (1861-1865), the Confederate government issued letters of marque, but after the first year of war a volunteer naval system was substituted for privateering. The federal government tried privateering in 1863, and Chile used it against Spain in 1865. These were the last known instances of privateering.
http://jolly-roger-pirate-journal.info/PHist1.html

The VF-103 Jolly Rogers fighter squadron of the U.S. Navy has a long and storied history as one of the Navy's most elite fighter squadrons, starting as the Fighting 17 during World War II. It has, at various times, been assigned the squadron numbers VF-17, VF-61, VF-84, and VF-103
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VF-103_Jolly_Rogers
The "Jolly Rogers" have been an almost constant presence in the United States Navy since January 1, 1943. Their distinctive skull-&-crossbones design have adorned a variety of aircraft from F4U Corsairs through to today's fleet defender, the F-14 Tomcat.
Though the "Jolly Rogers" name has been passed down through a number of squadrons over the years, their identity has remained strong while many of the squadron traditions from the earliest days have gone unchanged.
http://www.jolly-rogers.com/home2.htm

One of the most common misconceptions regarding USS KIDD (DD-661) is that of the origin of her name. She was in point of fact named after Rear Admiral Isaac Campbell Kidd, Sr., who was killed aboard USS ARIZONA at Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack on the U.S. Fleet on December 07, 1941.
But when KIDD's first crew was busy outfitting the ship in the Brooklyn Navy Shipyards in March and April of 1943, they quickly adopted the legendary pirate William Kidd as their mascot. The image of a swashbuckling pirate was painted on both sides of the ship's forward smokestack and the skull and crossbones of the Jolly Roger often flew from her mast. Throughout the course of World War II, the Korean War, and the Cold War, the crews of USS KIDD became known as "the Pirates of the Pacific". Many a sea story revolve around the antics that transpired which led to that salty and rambunctious reputation.
http://www.usskidd.com/captainkidd.html
Q: Why does the KIDD fly the Jolly Roger and have a pirate painted on the forward smokestack?
A: While the ship was named after RADM Issac C. Kidd, Sr., the first crew needed a mascot. They chose the pirate William Kidd from the early 18th century. Not wishing to dishonor the Admiral's memory, however, the crew asked Mrs. Kidd for her opinion. As it turned out, the idea was very appropriate since RADM Kidd's nickname while attending the Naval Academy had been "Cap" (as in Captain Kidd). Mrs Kidd spoke to the Navy brass and recieved permission for the crew to fly the Jolly Roger from the mast, making them the only ship authorized to do so in the U.S. Navy. The crew then hired an artist to paint the image of the pirate on the forward stack.
http://www.usskidd.com/faq.html
Thursday's Internet Edition, December 30, 2004
In 1944 the USS Kidd, through the authorization of the US Congress, was the first US Naval Ship commissioned to fly the Jolly Roger, considered the highest tribute awarded to a warship. From that day forward, the USS Kidd was known as the Pirate of the Pacific.
www.currycountyreporter.com

"The crews of all submarines captured should be treated as pirates and hanged".
The words of Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson VC, the Controller of the Navy, reveal why the Jolly Roger is the emblem of the Royal Navy Submarine Service.
http://www.solarnavigator.net/royal_navy_submarines.htm

DON'T FORGET POLAND.

Crews of two WW2 Polish submarines took over a practice of hoisting "Jolly Rogers" from their British comrades in arms. These two submarines were British-built Ursula-class ships, leased by Polish Navy. Operating very succesful from Malta, were know as "Terrible Twins". After war, got back to Royal Navy.
http://atlasgeo.span.ch/fotw/flags/pl~uboat.html
This link includes two victory flags attesting to the "achievements" of the ship.
This is a key to interpret the symbols
http://www.rnsubmus.co.uk/photodp/jolly%20roger.htm
on these flags.
http://www.rnsubmus.co.uk/photodp/jrships.htm

THE UNITED KINGDOM'S OFFICIAL USE OF THE PIRATE FLAG.

In May 1991 Opossum followed a while later by sister submarine Otus returned to H.M.S Dolphin from the Gulf in traditional Far East Camouflage colours (black and duck egg blue). Both vessels were flying the Jolly Roger, a symbol of a successful war patrol . It is probable that they had been involved in SAS and SBS reconnaissance operations possibly in preparation for the eventuality of an amphibious assault - the Iraqis feared an amphibious assault and accordingly deployed six divisions.
http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/gulf.htm

A number of vessels which took part in Exercise Argonaut 2001, Exercise Saif Sareea and Operation Veritas - the latter being the attack on Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces following the September 11 attacks in the United States - are back in their home ports.
Two of the three nuclear submarines involved - HMS Triumph and HMS Superb - sailed back into Faslane and Devonport respectively flying the Jolly Roger to show successful operational patrols.
The practice was begun by Max Horton in World War I as a riposte to the Admiralty's early observation that submariners were pirates, and although still entirely unofficial, it became a common practice during World War II.
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2001/0112/0001122402.asp

May 26, 2003
In recent weeks, a number of apparently unrelated news reports have, in sum, told a truth that is never reported. According to Human Rights Watch, thousands of British and American cluster bombs were fired at and dropped on civilian areas in Iraq. British artillery fired more than 2,000 of them at Basra. Each shell scatters bomblets over a wide area, and many fail to explode. Their victims are "not known", says the Ministry of Defence. They are known. They are often children; Iraq's population is almost half children.
At the same time, HMS Turbulent, a nuclear-powered submarine, returned to Plymouth flying the Jolly Roger, the pirates' emblem. This vessel fired 30 American Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraq, at a cost to the British taxpayer of £21m. What did they hit? How many people did they kill or maim in this nation of sick people and disproportionate numbers of children? The commander would only say that he was "proud to be called forward".
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3669

January 28, 2004--Could pirates and terrorists team up to stage a dramatic attack in one of the world's most strategic choke points?
<snip>
Several merchant vessels in the area have been hijacked temporarily--possibly as some kind of training exercise. A chemical tanker was boarded recently off the Indonesian island of Sumatra and the hijackers piloted it for over an hour before leaving.
http://www.southernutah.com/Articles/World_Affairs/Document.2004-01-28.0027
On December 26, 2004, Sumatra went BOOM.
Weeks later, the earth was still trembling.
The axis was shifter,
the spin was altered and landmasses had moved appreciably.

[youngred]

14. losing countries don't have to give up their flags

Japan dropped the rising sun, because that was their wartime flag only. The swastika was the Nazi party flag which Hitler made the German flag.

[Neanderthal]

61. What is with those freaks in the south that they can't accept that they lo

Halftime

[Clark2008]

80. Uh... no.

It was the carpetbaggers that made the South hate the North.

Man - you guys really need to do some research. Your prejudice is showing!

Ignorance=predjudice.

You need to LEARN from what you PREACH and THEN maybe you'll have a Southern plan that won't pray to the lowest common denominator.

I'm doing that. Why don't you join me?

[Machiavelli05]

91. You, my friend, are an idiot

1.) Banning the flag is called limiting free speec
2.) The south is not full of freaks
3.) WHAT concessions were made to the south? Is that what the yankee education is now? revisionist history to the point where they say reconstruction was GOOD for the South?


give me a break. learn some American History and get back to me.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. The Nazis were following a plan to eliminate all non-Aryan people

from their world. Killing civilians -- Jews, gypsies, the disabled, union members, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses -- was a big part of their plan, which also involved taking over other countries. The Confederate soldiers were fighting for freedom of their country, rebelling against the U.S. just as the American revolutionaries rebelled against England. Equating the two shows real ignorance of history.

[K-W]

5. The south was fighting to protect a fuedal economy.

Built on the backs of african slaves.

The American Revolution involved a group of people creating a more just government. Equating the two shows a real ignorance of history.

But the fact of the matter is nobody equated the two. They dont have to be equal to be comperable.

[DemBones DemBones]

84. The American revolution was not quite so noble as that, and

the Confederate rebellion was more noble. There was more at stake than the continuation of slavery.

You're saying slavery, a form of imprisonment, is as bad as extermination of a people? I just don't think it is. Slavery was evil, but less so.

[socalover]

6. And the Confederate soldiers were fighting to preserve slavery

And the Confederate soldiers were fighting to preserve slavery, of which reports estimate 2 to 20 million Africans lie dead at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean in the period known as the middle passage....

[Blue Wally]

11. Very few of the slaves

that came accross on the middle passage ever made it to the American colonies. Virtually all went to Brasil and the Carribean sugar islands. At the time that import of slaves became illegal (1810), there were only 1,378,000 blacks, slave or free, in the US. Many were born here and a lot of the slaves imported to the US were second and third generation from the sugar islands. Read Hugh Thomas' book "The Slave Trade" on actual numbers of slaving voyages, the number of slaves in each, and the destinations of the ships.

[socalover]

13. One book does not make fact

"Virtually all went to Brasil and the Carribean sugar islands"

That statement is utter nonsense, I can point you to many other links but don't have the time right now. Sorry, but your 'facts' are wrong.

[GarySeven]

30. How about several hundred books, then?

How about the books that detail the role of Northern banks and investment firms, exporters and insurers had in maintaining slavery? How about books that state that slavery remained legal in some parts of South America until early 20th century?

I suggest you read more than "The Big Book O'Slavery" before you lecture people on historical fact. History is far more complex than the coloring book (all black and white) where you get your facts.

[GarySeven]

26. Yankee soldiers fought to preserve slavery

Slavery was as legal in most of the Northern states as it was in the South. Abolition of slavery was never a policy of the United States until well after the war. When the war ended, the only places slavery was outlawed by federal edict was in the South, where the states were no longer states but conquered territory under military law. The slaves your great-granddaddy kept to wipe his butt were part of the America that the Yankee soldiers fought and died for.

[DrWeird]

28. The 13th amendment...

was pushed by Lincoln and ratified by Congress well before the end of the war.

But you're right, the North wasn't figting to free slaves, they were fighting to preserve the Union. Most were willing to settle for peaceful unification if it meant no emancipation.

[GarySeven]

32. Not "well before the end of the war"

It was proposed on Jan. 31, 1865, about four months before the end of the war and ratified in December. It should also be noted that the former Confederate states that ratified it were under military rule at the time and could have done no other thing.

[DrWeird]

34. Lincoln began the process shortly after reelection.

It took awhile for it to get through, but it was before the war ended, and certianly before "well after the war."

As for the Confederate states that ratified it, who gives a fuck about them?

[GarySeven]

35. How can mere intellectual discourse compete ...

against such awesome rhetoric? You make my point that all Yankees, without a solitary exception, are a waste of hydrogen.

[Neanderthal]

66. The issue was States Rights.

The nation was young enough that SRs still meant something. Slavery would have ceased to exist in the South with or without the “War of Northern Aggression”. In a word; Mechanization.

I suppose you believe that the North treated immigrants better that the South treated slaves?

[Machiavelli05]

92. Classic simple intepretation of history

90% of confederate soldiers werent slave owners
Most of the SOUTH didnt even own slaves
People in the North did own slaves. There was a slave trade to Boston Harbor.
The Confederacy was fighting to be a seperate country where states had more autonomy and a smaller centralized government.

[Jesus H. Christ]

7. Hmm, ignorance of history.

Hmm, you seem to be ignoring that the Confederacy executed black union soldiers upon capturing them.

So it seems that the Confederacy preferred to get as much work as it could out of black people before eliminating them.

[DemBones DemBones]

85. So? The Union didn't execute any Rebels?

Big difference between slavery and wholesale slaughter.

[ChairOne]

12. Couldn't have said it any better myself....

"The Confederate soldiers were fighting for freedom of their country, rebelling against the U.S. just as the American revolutionaries rebelled against England."

"Equating the two shows real ignorance of history."

LOL

[oldcoot]

27. Freedom from what?

White plantation owners were hardly oppressed. The American colonists who decided to revolt claimed that they had no representation in parliament (which was true). However, the plantation owners most certainly had representation in the U.S. Congress. Indeed, they probably had even more freedom than northern industrial workers.

Had they been successful in their rebellion, slavery would have survived. While I agree that slavery is not the same as genocide, we should gloss over the brutal nature of this "peculiar" institution or ignore the fact that, too many Americans, the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism.

[gottaB]

78. September 4, 1966, Cicero, Illinois

Martin Luther King leads a march through Cicero, Illinois in order to protest segregated housing. An angry mob of whites gathers. They jeer. They throw stones. Many are waving confederate flags.

An historical moment.

[Clark2008]

81. Oh, thank you!

Leave it to a Kucinich fan to know the reality!

I love Denny! :loveya:

[gottaB]

87. More moments in history

1. March 5th, 1770. Crispus Attucks led a protest against the Townsend Act in Boston, Massachusetts. He was slain by British soldiers in what came to be known as the Boston Massacre. Sam Adams, Paul Revere and other Patriots regarded Attucks as a martyr, the first man to fall in the American Revolution. Most historians believe that Attucks was a former slave.

2. April 12th, 1864. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest led an attack on Fort Pillow, Tennessee. Black troops who attempted to surrender were massacred.



http://www.civilwarliterature.com/ListOfIllustrations/TheMassacreAtFortPillow.htm


"Remember Fort Pillow!" became a rallying cry of the Massachusetts 54th Regiment. Nathan Bedford Forrest later founded the Klu Klux Klan.

[USA_1]

8. double standards

The reich wingers in this country complain that liberals are all out to destroy images of Jesus in public Christmas displays. That, of course, is a bullshit lie. But these reichsters have no objection when KKK burns Jesus during their meetings.

Now that's what I call a double standard.

[SheilaT]

10. Because Southerners somehow

got to rewrite history and convince too many people that it's simply a benign symbol of cultural heritage.

I remember the Civil War Centennial, when all of a sudden (I was in 7th grade at the time) we were told that OH, NO, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was really about States Rights and slavery wasn't very important at all, just an afterthought. Ha! It was always about slavery. The minority who were slave owners were able to convince the majority who were not that there sacred way of life was at risk and they needed to go to war to protect it. Sort of like how too many in this country have been convinced that Saddam really was responsible for 9/11 and he had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to this nation. Arrgghhhh!

[GarySeven]

33. Right. And the movies were right about the indians

always raiding the poor, defenseless settlers. They deserved to be exterminated, right?

[Clark2008]

82. That's not how I see it

The North has always had the winners spoils in writing the history.

As evidenced by this thread, it's clear that most people assume the war was fought over slavery and slavery alone. That is not true. The battle was over states rights. As the Denny fan above pointed out - the South would have eventually had to come out of agrarian doldrums or starve - white people, too. The issue was that it didn't want to - and that INCLUDED slavery, but it wasn't the only thing. Taxation was another point of contention - in fact, a bigger point of contention.

It wasn't a "convincing" thing. Robert E. Lee and all the "hillbillies" were against slavery - but they were for protecting the South as being different from the North. It was. It still is. And it always will be.

The trick, like Kennedy and Clinton, is to learn how to bring the two together based on their commonailty, which is still in a greater percentage, than their difference.

And, ignorance of history isn't one of them, dear.

[Squatch]

15. People can hoist either in this country

[deminflorida]

17. Go ahead and try and outlaw the Confederate Flag in the South...

it will be the same as being on the wrong side of the Gun Control issue.

The results: We have lost both houses of congress and the Presidency. Soon we will lose the courts as well.

I am against the Confederate flag flying on Public Buildings. It disgusts people. There's no law that I'm aware of that prohibits people from flying whatever flag they want on their private residences.

Go ahead and open up a can of worms like this and sooner or latter they will ban any type of symbol that disgusts a certain sector of the population. The Christian right will go directly after the Gay Pride Rainbow flag first, I'd almost guarantee it.

[ThorsHammer]

18. I like that idea

I don't have a problem with the flag myself, but it shouldn't be flown over state buildings. If people want to put it up in their own homes, fine, they have the right to free speech. However, there is no reason to put it on a courthouse, city hall, capital, or anything like that.

[Clark2008]

83. I also don' t like the Stars and Bars on federal buildings

but people here seem to think that everyone in the South is a big yahoo.

I am also against pledging allegience to the American flag. It's stupid. It's a piece of fucking cloth. However, it was cute the first time my 5-year-old did it (I focused more on the fact he could memorize something that long).

He's in my household. He's already kicking ass in school. I'm not too worried about this indoctrination shit. But I digress.

HOWEVER, did you guys know it's against the U.S. Flag Code to wear the flag, use the flag in ads, put wording next to the flag?


§176. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

* (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
* (b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
* (c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
* (d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
* (e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
* (f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
* (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
* (h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
* (i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
* (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
* (k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

http://www.usflag.org/us.code36.html#173

Interesting, isn't it?

[bemildred]

19. FWIW, I think all this fetishism over flags is primitive superstition.

But the Prince is still an idiot.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Racism and revisionist history.

Southerners love to believe that the civil war was about state's rights and not about slavery. Of course, the "state's rights" they were concerned with was the right to keep black people in bondage.

Then we are inundated with "noble" southerners like Lee, Jackson, and the rest of the traitors who should have been tried, but weren't.

[OxQQme]

24. In re; swastika

The first link from asking Jeeves for the origin

The Indian and Vedic connection you mention is likely the swastika's oldest incarnation. The symbol itself may still be found as an architectural element, decorating sufficiently aged temples to whatever deity is involved. There is a simply fascinating documentary on the swastika, and its journey from mystic rune to fascist emblem. Unhappily, I can't recall the title.

If memory serves, a particular German woman of wealth, and the upper class, made it her cause to sponsor the swastika into its position as The Emblem of the Nazi party. As often happens after wars, mysticism and spiritualism was popular thru-out post WW1 and the 1920's. She appears to have been a true believer of some kind, and felt the swastika itself had the power to lead Germany to ultimate triumph, that soldiers who fought under it would obtain super-strength, etc.
-SISTERSEATTL

#

The swastika is (or was, depending on your WWII point of view) actually a symbol of good luck, and possibly of fertility and regeneration.

I once read that several ancient cultures associated the symbol with the sun, although I'm not sure of the actual details on this. The Navajo Indians also had a similar symbol - depicting their gods of the mountains, rivers, and rain.

In India, the swastika is an auspicious mark - worn as jewelry or marked on objects as a symbol of good luck. The symbol, though, is extremely ancient and predates Hinduism. The Hindus associated it with the sun and wheel of birth and rebirth. It is an emblem of the Hindu god Vishnu, one of the supreme Hindu deities.

hope this shed a little light.....
_PEENIE1

#

Swastika has nothing to do with Christ and with Christianism. It is a Buddhist symbol for peace, as it still appears nowadays on Buddhist temples in Asia. I have seen one in a bi-lingual edition of a Taiwanese magazine. The editors felt the necessity of explaining in the English text that Swastika is a Buddhist symbol of peace, and this is why the puzzled European reader could see it in pictures showing temples.

A difference however can be noticed: the orientation of the arms is clockwise in the Buddhist swastika and anti-clockwise in the one adapted by the Nazis. Unfortunately I don't know how this change occurred or its significance.
- MYKK1

#

[Yupster]

36. They weren't tried

but you'll just declare them guilty anyway?

Geeze

Hopefully you're never indicted for a crime someday, not tried and assumed to be guilty anyway.

Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason and begged for a trial so he could prove his innocence. He had a high priced group of northern lawyers well funded by noted abolitionists Cornelius Vanderbilt and Horace Greeley who were sure they could have him found innocent on the grounds that secession was legal and legally accomplished.

The government never gave him his day in court. They just left him indicted.

So a guy on an internet website 100 years later can just declare him guilty.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

You bet he and his pals were guilty of treason. The only thing that saved them was that northern "moderates" wanted to keep the power structure in place in the vain hope that the south would give up it's medieval system and join the civilized part of the country. Instead they reemerged from under their rocks and instituted Jim Crow.

[QC]

54. It wasn't northern moderates who wanted to keep the system in place.

It was mostly Wall Street and New England textile interests, who wanted to keep the cotton rolling in. That's a big reason why Reconstruction got sold out and chattel slavery was replaced with sharecropping and tenant farming.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. I agree. But, the Democrats and "moderate" Republicans enabled them.

Without the laws that pulled the troops out of the south that were passed by the politicians that opposed the "Radical Republicans" they wouldn't have succeeded.

[DemBones DemBones]

90. Wonder why the North has never wanted to end

tenant farming and sharecropping in the South? Why did all the textile mills move South? Why were most Southern states convinced to enact "right to work" laws that work against labor unions (and thus against fair wages)? Could it be that the rich always want cheap labor?

When the rich who owned the textile mills up North could no longer get cotton cheaply enough (because Southern farmers now had to pay wages, low as they were), the mill owners simply moved the mills South. Then the mill workers and the farm workers were all paid low wages and the rich got richer. Blacks were free but there weren't many jobs for them. Nearly 150 years later, there's far too much poverty in the South, among blacks and whites. Textile mills and other factories are outsourcing jobs. . . But instead of worrying about all the poor in the South, some feel compelled to criticize the few who want to display a rebel flag. Go figure.

[Charlie Brown]

88. I believe our Costitution identifies treason

as levying war against the United States. Of this Lee, Johnston, Bragg, Davis and all the Confederate Commanders and state legislators who aided them were unquestionably guilty.

[GarySeven]

21. The U.S. flag stayed the same during the whole slavery era

it remained the same during the oppression of native Americans
it remained the same while women were unable to vote
it remained the same during the internment of Japanese Americans.

The U.S. flag did not symbolize freedom and liberty during all these times, yet you don't cry for it being hauled down, burned and reviled.

For the last freaking time: the heritage of the South is the SOUTH's heritage. It is not the heritage of anyone else. It is no business of anyone else's. You do NOT have the right to tell us how to think or feel about our past: that is up to us to do. We feel remorse and regret for slavery, but YOU tolerated slavery far longer than we did and profited more from it to boot. We feel remorse and regret for mistreatment of blacks, but YOU exterminated native Americans and the worst racial riots in history have happened on YOUR doorstep. You want to bury symbols of Southern heritage because YOU think they should be; yet they aren't YOUR symbols to dispose of. You want to extinguish anything associated with the South - our culture, our language and regional pride - things that Southern whites and blacks enjoy equally.

When you take down the monuments to Custer and stop moving from your homes when black people move in then MAYBE you will have the moral authority to lecture us. It was the northern impetus to dictate to the South that started the civil war in the first place and it is the same reason why you lose the Red State vote in the 21st century.

[maxpower]

22. Like Neal Peart said

Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled.

[Corgigal]

23. I live in the south

Bible Belt red, in fact. Neither is okay at our house. I can only control what I purchase and what my kids wear. It's a start however those confederate tee-shirts aren't "hot" anymore in our local high school. I give the credit to peer pressure for changing that.

[Spiffarino]

25. A little off-topic but,

The founders of the Confederacy - the super-rich slaveholding feudal barons - desperately wanted to maintain the institution of slavery.

However, there were many soldiers who had no personal investment in or love of slavery. They wanted their own screwed up country. They had no interest in taking over and imposing their will on the Union states. I now wish we would have given it to them in exchange for ending slavery. Two problems solved.

Of course I don't think that would ever have happened. But what if??

[Yupster]

37. There were many soldiers in the Confederate Army

who were against secession, including some of the country's most important leaders.

Vice-president Alexabder Stephens spoke forcefully against secession at the secession convention, but then was elected VP of the CSA.

Major General Jubal Early was in charge of a division at Gettysburg (got all the way to York, Pennsylvania before the battle), later a corps in Lee's ANV. He was a delegate to the Virginia secession convention where he voted "No".

Once the country was invaded, it pretty much came together and fought hard to repel the invaders.

Of about 1 million able bodied white men in the south at the beginning of the Civil War, the Confederacy put an amazing 750,000 of them in uniform. No group of Americans other than Native Americans ever put forth those kind of numbers and determination to defend their homes. When the war ended, one fourth of the one million men were dead and another fourth were wounded.

[Yupster]

39. A good what if Spiff

If the Confederacy were left to go freely, how long would slavery have survived?

Also how big would the country be because there were eight slave states that remained in the union. Once the war started, four joined the CSA, four stayed in the USA. Without the war any or all of the eight could have stayed or gone.

My guess is that there would have been a gradual end to slavery modeled on the Jamaica system.

I have a friend who's A-A and a local elected official and I asked him once if he could choose to have avoided the death and destruction of the Civil War, but only had slavery end starting in 1880 gradually over a generation, would he make that choice?

He said he wanted to think about it and talk to his wife. The next day he called back and said no, there comes a time when you've waited long enough and won't wait any more. I thought that was interesting.

[IrateCitizen]

29. Because we're taught the evils of Nazism, but never the evils of slavery

The "official" version of slavery, as told through our history textbooks, is a completely banal one. In fact, some textbooks even go so far as to portray the condition of African Americans in slavery as preferable to their condition immediately after the Civil War, and go on to insinuate that the blame for the condition of African Americans after the Civil War rests on their own shoulders -- rather than where it belongs, which is solely on the shoulders of white racism that continued (and actually prospered) after the Civil War.

For instance, did you know that the state of Indiana, a Union State during the Civil War, was pretty much completely taken over by the Ku Klux Klan shortly after the turn of the 20th Century? Did you know that Warren G. Harding was made an honorary member of the Klan following his inauguration as President? Is any of this taught in our history books?

Do we really teach what it was like for a black person to live in the post-reconstruction South, knowing that he or she had no legal redress for wrongs committed against them, constantly afraid that they could be lynched for simply looking the wrong white person in the eye or not stepping aside on the sidewalk?

Do we devote significant time in school discussing how slaves had absolutely NO RIGHTS, how their masters could beat them at a whim, how they could have a foot cut off for running away? Do we ever talk about how the white aristocracy in the South did absolutely NO WORK toward the generation of its wealth, and that the descendants of slaves were NEVER compensated for this wrong?

Until we begin to discuss slavery and its aftermath honestly and openly, the Confederate Flag will still be misrepresented as a "symbol of the South". It is only when we do so that it will take its rightful place as a symbol of complete and total inhumanity and utter barbarity alongside the Nazi swastika.

[carolinayellowdog]

38. Revisionism had Southern victims and Northern enablers

Hey,

Thanks for the most balanced perspective in this thread so far. I find it appalling that so many supposedly non-racist DUers use "Southerner" as synonymous with "white Confederacy supporter" ignoring the many/most Southerners who were and are neither. 450,000 residents of slave states, 2/3 of them African American, fought for the Union. 900,000, almost all white, fought for the Confederacy. Southerners like me whose CW ancestors fought mainly for the Union (and know it) admire the Confederate flag as little as any Yankee. Southerners who proclaim it as a symbol of "our heritage" irk me just as much as Northerners who imagine we all feel that way. All it stands for to me is the most tragic, stupid, destructive thing that ever happened here-- a symbol of shame and horror.

As for post-Reconstruction reaction and revisionism, it was hardly something foisted on the North by the South. The main victims were African American Southerners, but it benefited only a small percentage of Southern whites and harmed the rest. Landlessness and sharecropping increased dramatically for both races in the aftermath. Northern Democrats and some Republicans turned their backs on black *and* white Republicans in South (the good guys in the 1890s), allying themselves with the disenfranchisers/Jim Crow/Klan in the South out of political convenience.

Southerners Thomas Dixon and Margaret Mitchell wrote their revisionist novels, but it was northern publishers and readers who made them bestsellers, and the blockbuster films they inspired were neither made by Southerners nor consumed primarily by them.

The only Confederate flag in my neighborhood is flown by my next door neighbor, who hails from Connecticut. I've never asked him what he means by it, because I don't want to know.

CYD

[ChairOne]

40. *No one* imagines you *all* feel that way.....

So many strawmen, so little time....

But enough of you down there *do* feel that way, to support the more general perception.

If you dislike that perception, maybe the "good whites" should spend more time getting the bad ones to see the light, rather than playing the wounded victim.

EDIT: would rather have said: "the HELPLESS wounded victim"...

[carolinayellowdog]

41. How do you know what I spend my time doing?

Or that I feel helpless, or victimized any more by pervasive historical ignorance than we ALL are?

In fact, I've been researching and writing on this topic (Unionists in eastern NC) for some time with precisely the goal of enlightening Southerners about their own heritage. Not just with the eventual goal of a book but with the immediate outlet of a county historical/ genealogical website to share information.

If you see any straw man that is actually an inaccurate description of history and how it's misunderstood, please speak up. Otherwise, thanks for your time.

[ChairOne]

42. I didn't make a single claim about how you personally spend your time...

So again, you're responding to something that was never said.

The strawman you offered wasn't *historical*, it was *current*. (Not to say necessarily that you haven't offered historical ones, that's just not what my claim was concerned with.)

Strawman: "... so many supposedly non-racist DUers use "Southerner" as synonymous with "white Confederacy supporter" "

One consequence of holding two things to be synonymous is that one thereby affirm the universally quantified biconditional between the two things. I defy you to show me anybody who has done this. Heck, I defy you to show me anybody who has ever maintained the universally quantified conditional in even ONE direction.

I claim you cannot show either of these this (prove me wrong). And therefore that your statement constituted a strawman.

You're welcome.

[carolinayellowdog]

53. Try post 20 in this thread

"Southerners love to believe that the civil war was about state's rights and not about slavery."

No, it doesn't *explicitly* state that this is true of ALL Southerners; it just implies it. But I never said that such constructions make explicit assertions of synonymity. I said that they *use* "Southerner" as if it applies only to rightwing whites, which is *implicit* equivalence. That has been seen here hundreds of times since the election and fairly often before. It has caused tremendous angst among dozens of DUers from the South, who have posted to that effect many times.

[ChairOne]

65. LOL - it implies no such thing - explicitly or implicitly.

Americans love eating at McDonald's.

That's completely true, and it in no way implies that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN love eating at McDonald's.

You specifically said "synonymous". Unless you've gone back and edited it out - I haven't checked. Shoulda taken a screenshot, perhaps...

Does the claim at the top "implicitly" imply that literally every American loves eating at McDonald's? Of course not.

The claims you said were made "so many times" simply weren't made. By backing up to this magical "implicit", you're in essence agreeing that such claims were never made. So my strawman charge is completely vindicated.

[ScaRBama]

43. Come on....

are we on this subject again?
We have much bigger fish to fry than this.

[theboss]

44. True story: I have a black friend who once wore a Confederate bandana

But - then again - she is a bit insane. Take that as you will.

[TWiley]

45. You make a good point.

Both symbols are an abomination and represent the same type of people. It is amazing that they are not both treated the same.

The American support for the Confederate Flag is probably because it is the most popular "Christian Symbol" of the "Bible Belt". And we all know how those religious folks love their symbols.

Either the "Bible Belt" is that, or it is not. If it truly is where the "moral majority of Christianity resides" then it is apparent that this is the will of those righteous folk.

[txaslftist]

47. We can't resolve the Civil War on DU

Or any time soon. It still goes back to "was it a war for slavery/genocide or was it a war for State's rights?"

If the war was about State's Rights, there is some justification for it and the confederate battle flag is a symbol of people standing against an oppressive federal regime. If it was a war to preserve slavery, it is about genocide, the south was little different than the nazis.

The nazis, on the other hand, were evil personified, a fact that can be little disputed.

So the confederate battle flag has at least some supporters who view it not as a symbol of racism, but as a symbol of a stand against tyranny. They also take pride in the military accomplishments of Robt. E. Lee, probably the best contemporary general of his generation (for those who back Ulysses S. Grant, I would posit that he was a next generation general, the first to understand fully the potential of total modern war).

So, the history is different, and there is at least a modicum of justification for "southern pride". There is and can be no rational justification for Auschwitz.

[DelawareValleyDem]

48. OK, but it's also a symbol

of states that thought so little of this country they attempted to form their own. Rather UnAmerican in my view.

[txaslftist]

69. I take it you oppose secession from Jesusland?n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

49. We have a winner!

You said what I was thinking! Great job!!!!

[ChairOne]

51. LOL - not....

Because our Texan friend relies on the false assumption that the CW couldn't be about *both* things.

And indeed, it was about both states rights AND slavery (and one or two other things too).

There CAN be several reasons for things, folks.

[Behind the Aegis]

58. true, but...

There were multiple reasons for the CW, slavery was indeed one. However, there were other reasons that didn't revolve around slavery. The difference is that the Nazi's destroyed millions. The South enslaved thousands, but it wasn't the defining thing of the South. Therefore, the flags are different, but both still can produce very negative feelings. It is important to discuss the similarities and the differences.

[IrateCitizen]

59. You think there's a big difference between enslavement and destruction?

First off, I'd check your numbers if I were you. The South had MILLIONS enslaved at the time of the Civil War. Not thousands, but MILLIONS.

Furthermore, your comments only serve to diminish the barbarous practice that was slavery, and diminish the plight of those who were on the losing end of it. Can you imagine what it must have been like to go through your life with absolutely NO RIGHTS? For example, if you were a woman, you could be subjected to near-daily rapings at the hands of a male member of the family that owned you -- and there wouldn't be a damned thing you could do about it!

The Nazi attempts to exterminate those peoples they deemed "undesirable" (not just Jews, but Gypsies and a lot of Slavs as well) was horrific. But so was the institution of slavery.

Both should be viewed in the proper context. But since the victims of slavery were not White Europeans (or their descendants), but rather people of color, its inhumanity is minimized. And therefore the attendant racism that justified it and the legacy of that racism is largely forgotten.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. yes, there is a difference.

Both are heinous issues. Both destroy lives. The difference is that slaves can become free, the dead cannot become 'undead!' (And, yes, I know slaves did die.) I meant to type millions for the slaves as well, I looked away at the TV, and typed the wrong number...that was my fault. I also didn't reread my own post or I would have caught it.

There is a grave injustice because white (or slightly less tan white) do get more attention, than do the plights of those who are not white. This is the case in all things. We wouldn't be in Iraq, if not for oil. If our people were so "horrified" by genocide, we should have been in Rwanda years ago! So, you are right,...like Chris Rock says..."if it is all white...it's all right!" This is why racism is still institutionalized in our nation and nations throughout the world.

Both SHOULD be viewed in the proper context. Enslavement of ANYONE is evil. The mass murder of ANYONE is evil. But, there is a difference between murder and slavery.

[ChairOne]

63. And moreover.... attempting to *rank* them....

seems completely wrongheaded to me..... Unless someone seriously wants to try to argue along the lines: "because slavery wasn't as bad as Nazism, the rebel flag isn't as bad as the swastika". Have fun with that one.

Once it's agreed that the CW was - at least to a significant degree, and in combination with other things - about slavery, the argument about the rebel flag being JUST a symbol about "heritage" completely vanishes. The simple fact is that the rebel flag isn't JUST about heritage.

Remind me just what heritage is that, again? lol I forget sometimes, being as inundated as I am with the don't-forget-about-the-good-southern-whites outcries that grow so well in fertile DU-land...

[IrateCitizen]

57. The specific state's right in question was slavery.

Your presentation of this argument, whether you realize it or not, reeks of the Eurocentrism (meaning from the perspective of White Europeans, or their descendants) that permeates what is known as the "official" version of US history.

I would bet that if you were to go back in time and ask any person who was a slave what they thought of the institution of slavery, they would describe it as just as inhumane and barbaric as the Nazi's attitude toward the Jews. Especially if you had talked to a slave who escaped and was caught, and may have had his foot hacked off as a punishment. Or the woman slave who worked in the house and was repeatedly raped by her white "master". Or the child who was ripped away from his parents at a young age because he was sold off to another "master".

Try reading some of the accounts of slavery as told from those who were actually slaves. Also read some of the political debates of the time immediately prior to the Civil War. Then try and tell me that the specific state's right at the heart of the Civil War was NOT slavery, and that slavery was a completely inhumane and barbaric institution. Any attempts to say otherwise are not realistic -- rather they are the rationalizations of those who wish to diminish the significant transgressions of our ancestors, and in doing so, to ignore their lingering effects today.

[Nile]

50. They are both just symbols but...

They are both just symbols but the Jewish community has more cash and lobbying power than the black community.

[ChairOne]

52. Oh boy.

Well, say goodbye to this thread (I predict)... lol

[IrateCitizen]

55. I'd suggest clarifying your answer a bit...

The question isn't what lobby has more dollars, but from what view history is told and how that fits into the context.

The Holocaust was about White Europeans killing other White Europeans. That is why it has been discussed so honestly and openly.

Slavery, OTOH, was about White Europeans and their direct descendants exploiting other races. Since the "official" view of history, especially as portrayed in high school textbooks, is told from the point of view of the descendants of White Europeans (more specifically, RICH White Europeans), an honest and open discussion of slavery and the attendant racism that was necessary for its perpetuation is taboo. It cannot be discussed within a forum that allows only the presentation of one overarching point of view. Therefore, it is largely distorted to make it fit within that perspective, rather than discussed honestly, in which case it would shatter that perspective.

[Behind the Aegis]

56. Nice!

It never ceases to amaze me at the level of ignorance that can be displayed here...and here the ignorance is bigotry and a lack of the ability to debate. Very sad indeed!

[Elminster]

60. For most of the people here......

Seems that the flag you people want to do away with is what is
known as the Confederate Battle flag.

This one.
This is the Navy Jack flown by the Confederate Navy.
Most of you believe this to be the only flag of the Confederacy.
You are wrong.
Here is another flag.

This is the first National Flag of the Confederacy.
Here is another.

This it the second National Flag of the Confederacy.
And finally..

The third National Flag of the Confederacy.

These are, if I am right, all the flags used by the Confederacy.
I may be wrong but most of you people here would not know this
because you do not study the history of this country much less the
Civil War.
Trust me when I say much more wrong was done under the banner of
"Old Glory" than under the "Stars and Bars".
Much of the reason that the Civil war, or The war of Northern
Aggression for you yanks, was fought was purely political in
nature. Was slavery part of it, yes but not a huge part.
The biggest reason the war was fought was over the rights for the
southern states to secede from the Union, pure and simple.
Both the North AND the South had slaves at that time.
Here in later years it's easier for the subject of slavery to be
blamed as the cause for that war.
Black troops fought on BOTH sides of the conflict. And died under
both flags fighting for what they thought was the survival for
their way of life.
Say what you will but that's it in a nutshell.

[Neanderthal]

67. We have a winner...

Give that man a cigar!

[txaslftist]

70. Elminster takes us to task with history...

heaven forbid his history should dare to challenge the things we just "know". One excellent point he makes is that the evils inflicted under the flag of the United States include American Indian genocide that was much more total and pronounced than that of African American slaves; Japanese Internment; smallpox blankets; wounded knee; if we are going to ban symbols of oppression, shouldn't the stars and stripes be banned?

What about the Union Jack? The golden triangles of slaves, rum and cotton was almost entirely conducted under the flag of British sailing vessels.

Oh, wait. I forgot the cross, under which Spain committed the most horrific genocide campaign known, including the Nazi horror, which was the destruction of almost the entire indigenous population of South America. Let's ban crucifixes.

Damn...forgot about that hammer and sickle, the chinese star, the Turkish crescent and star (lest we forget the Ottoman's genocide); or should we maybe do away with symbols altogether?

[ChairOne]

71. So is the line of reasoning that.....

... because we cannot eliminate all bad references, that we shouldn't bitch about *this* one?

Just another "they're just as bad as we are" argument...

[txaslftist]

74. No. The question was at the top of the post...

Why are the symbols treated differently.

The line of reasoning is that every symbol has a different history and "cause" or whatever you like to call it, behind it. There are philosophical reasons to agree with the Confederate cause that have nothing to do with slavery.

Go to Lew Rockwell's site and you will find lots of postings from people who STILL think that the South was legally justified in seeking secession. The war of secession was fought -in part- under the confederate battle flag. It was not at the time a symbol of racism. It was appropriated by the KKK as a symbol of racism slightly before the turn of the century. The British flag would have made a much better symbol of slavery, as most of the traffickers in human bondage were, in fact, British.

There were slaves in northern states as well as in southern states. Interestingly, the emancipation proclamation did not purport to free all of the slaves in the United States. It only applied to those held in southern states.

I am not trying to justify the flying of a confederate flag. I think doing so shows a very large degree of insensitivity. On the other hand, every person in America is free to show any symbol he wants or fly any flag he wants, else we aren't a free country anyway.

I also think that the genocide committed under the nazi flag was much more severe than that committed under the confederate FLAG. I'm not trying to compare that done by the practice of slavery in all of its four hundred year history, mind you, only that practiced under the FLAG of the confederacy.

So, in my mind, the histories of the symbols are different, so there is a distinction. In addition, as my previous post points out, there is probably the blood of oppression and genocide under ANY flag that's been around a while.

Still, prince Harry wearing a nazi uniform is just stupid. He's being an ignorant ass. Doesn't he know he's a symbol, too?

[ChairOne]

72. "Was slavery part of it, yes but not a huge part." ROFL...

... that depends VERY heavily on one's perspective, I suppose...

[Technowitch]

73. Because the South pretty much controls this country nowadays

[Elminster]

76. Equating the Confederate battle flag

with the Nazi flag is just wrong.
Just because a hate group uses it as a symbol to push their agenda
makes the flag wrong? What if they started using "Old Glory" for
the same purpose? What if the KKK and W.A.R. started marching around with the American flag held high? Should we stop using it as the
symbol of our country just because of that?
Hitler perverted a native American symbol and used it as a symbol for his Nazi party. All he did was reverse the direction of the
bends in it.
As far as the history of the civil war goes, here is some of it.
The southern states were tired of being ruled over by the northern states and it was no secret that the northern states controlled the
House and senate. So instead of having the northern states dictate to them they decided to secede from the Union and form their own
government and country, the CSA. Once this was done it threw the country into civil war. The Union could not take the country being
split in half so those in Congress decided to go to war and force the southern states back into the union. They were successful
because the north was more industrial based and the south was agriculturally based. Plus the north was successful in blockading
the Gulf of Mexico and denying the south resupply via that route.
History lesson done for now.
Feel free to contact me if you want to continue this discussion.
Peace

[Yupster]

77. You see how badly many take Bush winning

when everyone we know hates him.

Imagine what it was like in Virginia where Lincoln got 1.1 % of the vote and came in fourth, or North Carolina or Tennessee where Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot at all?

And those three states didn't even secede when Lincoln got elected. In fact Tennessee nrrowly voted to not call a secession convention.

It was only after Lincoln stupidly called for troops from each state to quell the rebellion that those states were forced to get off the fence and choose sides. They chose the new Confederacy rather than providing troops to invade the other southern states.

Bush's Iraq invasion may be the second stupidest decision ever made by a president, but Lincoln demanding troops from North Carolina to invade South Carolina still is tops.

Without Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee there could be no viable Confederacy. They were three of the four most populous states, and provided a great deal of the leadership of the country.

The war would have been a lot easier if there were no RE Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Joseph Johnston, Jubal Early, JEB Stuart, AP Hill, Richard Ewell,or Nathan Bedford Forrest fighting in gray.

[renaissanceguy]

86. What's your point?

If the South cares so much about its "states rights" and the CFA history, why doesn't it just go ahead and secede?

This is America. We have one national flag.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14741250

[OxQQme]

89. Ecotopia

I refer y'all to Callenbach's books,Ecotopia and Ecotopia Emerging.
The author writes of the damaged central government (just like the present one) and the struggle to secede and form a new nation that included from the middle western part of California up into the Puget Sound, Seattle part of the country, from the coast to the Sierra and Cascades ridge line. Highly recomend reading about the forces needed to secede.