I don't get all the furor over people flying the Confederate flag

[rpannier]

To me it just says, "I associate with losers and I'm proud of it."

[noahmijo]

1. There is no flag that greater symbolizes TREASON than the Confederate flag

But yea you (not the starter of this thread) wanna fly it fine, then when some huge black beats the living shit outta you don't expect me to come to your aid.

[Obiepup]

4. Treason?

The Founding Fathers committed treason against GB.

So our flag is a symbol of treason.

[noahmijo]

6. Okay point taken let me rephrase then

TREASON AGAINST AMERICA.

Better?

And when we committed treason it wasn't soley so that we could continue to whip and enslave black people. (although I understand Americans continued to do so after the revolutionary war, the point is that wasn't the target of the revolutionary war)

[NYC Liberal]

7. Also, we actually won the war against GB.

So flying the Stars and Stripes now would not be "treason" because we are not a part of GB anymore.

The south IS part of the United States now.

[Obiepup]

13. But if it had won the war

it would be it's seperate union.

Texas fought to become independent of Mexico.

Fighting to seperate one's self is not inherently evil.

Maybe the CSA should have won.

Many of those states vote red.

[NYC Liberal]

17. Right, IF it had won then it'd be OK to fly whatever

flag they want to.

But they didn't. They lost. Time to stop fighting it and get over it already.

Of course, they can fly whatever flag they want in their front yard...nobody's stopping them...but like noahmijo said, don't expect me to be crying when someone decides to do something when they don't like it.

[Lindacooks]

19. Sorry, that flag is a symbol of racism.

It gained popularity in the 1960s as a reaction against the Civil Rights movement:

http://msuinfo.ur.msstate.edu/meridian/news/archive/2000/flag.html

<snip>

As for the most recent disputes in South Carolina and Georgia, a simple history lesson might suffice to convey the essence of the flag's particular meaning in those debates. The state of South Carolina, currently undergoing a boycott by the NAACP, began flying the "Stars and Bars" on the capitol rotunda in Columbia in 1962. That's right . . . 1962, not 1862.

The early 1960s in the lower South marked the pinnacle of violence, ill feelings, and struggle that we refer to as the Civil Rights Movement. The white legislators of the Palmetto State voted to raise the Confederate flag, ostensibly, to mark the centennial of the Civil War, which began in Charleston Harbor. A much more precise date for the centennial celebration would have been 1961-- because the war actually started in 1861--or perhaps even 1960-- because South Carolina seceded from the Union in 1860. According to neo-Confederates, then and now, the war was, after all, about states' rights and not slavery.

By 1960, or even April 1961, the Freedom Riders had not yet made their way through South Carolina (where, by the way, they encountered their first violent resistance at Rock Hill) and had not yet brought the Civil Rights Movement to the most recalcitrant of Southern states. The decision of South Carolina legislators to fly the Confederate flag in 1962 was, obviously, one motivated primarily by resistance to this movement.

<snip>

[Sandpiper]

20. Funny you should mention Texas

As its war for independence happened for much the same reasons as the US civil war.

One of the biggest beefs that Texans had against Santa Anna was that he amended Mexican law to abolish slavery in Texas.

[BrendaStarr]

42. They fought for slavery

The North didn't necessarily fight the Civil War to abolish slavery, but the South did secede because they felt that the institution of slavery was threatened.

Within the union they wanted to expand then number of pro slave states.

Once out they just wanted to hold onto slavery.

They left the union at the election of Abe Lincoln because he was considered an abolishionist and they thought (probably rightly so) that they would not be able to push their agenda well under Lincoln.

I'll link to this high school essay page on http://jc-schools.net/write/civil-war.htm. I did not find the info there, (nor did we really learn the true reasons for the CW in high school, though we did in college.

The reasons for the Civil War is one of the great lessons of history.

[raccoon]

68. I think the average Union soldier, if he thought about it at all,

was fighting to "preserve the UNION!" not to abolish slavery. Or else he was drafted and couldn't pay for exemption.

The average Southerner was fighting because his homeland had been invaded. (Wonder if any of the Northern newspapers referred to the Confederate soldiers as "insurgents?")

The sad thing is most white Southerners didn't own slaves. They were fighting for the right of the few wealthy Southerners to own slaves.

Same shit, different century.

[mzteris]

59. quoting you: "Fighting to seperate one's self is not inherently evil."

It is if you're doing it for inherently evil reasons........



Although, the War Between the States wasn't REALLY fought because of "anti-slavery" on the part of the North - but for economic reasons - which economic success of the South, of course, was tied to their use of slaves.

The North seized upon "slavery" as a raison d'etre to rally the common man. That Northern industrial sweatshops were nearly as egregious in practice seemed to have escaped their notice.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. What Economic Success Of The South?

The south was no more than 45% as profitable or as productive as the North in the 20 years prior to the war. They may have been dependent upon slavery to keep from going into total economic collapse, but several academic tomes on the subject suggest that they would have been better off paying people to work the fields and freeing them, because even upon eating the initial capital cost of "buying" those people, the productivity gains would have been more than enough to offset the pay and losses.

The working poor in the north, as well as the small plot farmers, produced nearly 3 times the output as slaves on a plantation. They weren't making much but since it cost about 60% as much to keep a slave as to pay someone a subsistence wage, the productivity gains would have been enormous for that kind of investment.

So, it wasn't really about economics at all. It was about power, but from a purely economic standpoint, the landowners would have been far better off just paying these folks and setting them completely free.
The Professor

[mzteris]

70. I don't have

the info to hand - it's been decades since I've read about the economic reasons for the War - but I do remember having studied that before.

IIRC, it was the fact that the South was going to start primary trade in Cotton with ?France and NOT the North. The industrialized north was heavily dependent on the South's cotton (and crops) and a psing contest ensued amongst the industrialists of the N and the Plantation owners of the South.

Small plot farmers produced more than the large plantations? Do you have a source for that? And even IF - in hindsight - that is a realization - the perception AT THE TIME - was that plantations were more profitable. Besides, it was a way of life for them and unthinkable that the "gentry" should actually have to get their hands dirty doing any manual labor when they had all those nice slaves to do everything for them.


**So, it wasn't really about economics at all. It was about power,**

Uh - money IS power, remember.

[ProfessorGAC]

81. First, You Misunderstood One Important Point

I didn't say small plot farmers produced more than the plantations. I said the small plot farmers in the north produced more on a per worker, per acre basis than the plantations. There are MANY tomes, all academic, on antebellum economics. You can find them in any college library. It's a very common graduate school topic in economics.

Money was not necessarily directly equated with power in those days. Remember, this was still over 150 years ago! While it helped, money wasn't the be all end all it is today. The societies were far more insular, and therefore, self-protective.

As to your point, vis a vis, the South and France, my question would be "Yes and. . ." I'm not sure i see the point. The north controlled almost all shipping, and were the lion's share of European exports. So, sending cotton to France, would have just resulted in return shipments of goods to the north, that the preponderance of the southern population couldn't afford. That's economically foolish. The threat to the North was virtually negligible.

The North was making 70% of all revenues, and almost 3/4ths of all profit, and almost 95% of all patents being granded were going to to Northern firms and inventors. This despite the fact that they only had 53% of the population.

As to not "getting hands dirty". You and i are agreeing completely on this one! That's the problem. The decisions to secede and preserve slavery were done for reasons NON-economic, since the data is clear that there was no capitalistic advantage to the southern gentry. It just meant that the idle rich could remain the idle rich, but wasn't a sound economic policy. So, we're on the same wavelength about that.

I'm not saying the south wasn't taking advantage of free labor. They certainly were. But, the structure was not a sound economic platform on which to base long term growth and stability. It was a failing system that discouraged growth and innovation, and couldn't be self-sustaining, because 80% of the population had nothing to spend, and one third of them would never be free to spend money, even if they had it. It was a system, similar to Soviet Communism, that was headed for collapse the moment it was established. It just took longer than the Soviet Union to get there. Had there been mass communication, in those days, i have a feeling the collapse would have been more rapid.
The Professor

[mzteris]

82. like I said

it's been decades since I've read up on it - and not sure I want to go on a fishing expedition for it at this point in time (as I tend to get completely immersed and take WAY too much time when I get in that mode. lol)

I'm sure, though, I remember something about the alliance between the South and France and cutting out the North which made the N angry -

Also, you missed my point - I was saying that the NORTH fought the War for economic reasons - that THEY were the ones who "used slavery" as a rallying point for the masses. They (those in power) didn't really give a rats ass about the slaves - eliminating them gave them an advantage.

[ProfessorGAC]

84. We Agree On That Point

They didn't give a damn in the North about the slaves. But, they would have been successful with or without the war. Remember that despite incompetent generals, and the glitterati's sons able to avoid the draft, the north won. With a full blown draft, and competent leadership the whole thing would have lasted under a year.

But, the south did use "economic" rationalizations as well. That's always been my point. The economy of the south was a failure in slow motion. It couldn't have been sustained so, those rationalizations were useless and pathetic.

I think we're only disagreeing on some specifics, not the general premises.
The Professor

[mzteris]

87. old southern joke......

"We coulda whupped 'em with cornstalks!.......... but they wouldn't fight with cornstalks."

[ProfessorGAC]

88. LOL! I'd Never Heard That One Before

That's funny!
The Professor

[blindpig]

76. you couldn't pay a free man enough to work in the rice fields

When slavery ended in SC rice growing did too. Rice was the basis of many a fortune in the Low Country. Did leave us with a bunch of cool wetlands.

[Yupster]

95. However, there was no income tax

back then.

The major source of revenue for the federal government other than land sales was tariff receipts.

The south relied on foreign trade more than the north did selling its cotton overseas and bringing in European goods in return. Therefore the south paid a disproportionate share of the government budget.

There was also a complaint that the large spending items the federal government financed with southern revenues were often expensive canals to help industry in the north.

So important or not, the south had its economic complaints.

[Terran]

66. In was inherently evil in the case of the South

Those states fought to preserve slavery (no matter what anyone says to the contrary). That was evil.

As to whether it would have been a greater evil in the long run if they had won, that's hard to say. I could see a 20th century CSA siding with the Nazis, and that would not have been good, at all.

[BillZBubb]

14. Treason: ABSOLUTELY!

You need to learn a little history.

The Founding Fathers did NOT commit treason. They enumerated their just grievances in the Declaration of Independence. They had NO representation, yet were forced to obey British laws.

The Southern TRAITORS did commit treason. They were bound by the Constitution that their states approved. Yet, they violated the Constitution without trying Constitutional means to resolve their grievances. Instead they fired upon a Federal military installation. They attempted to seize government property. They formed a military alliance to destroy the Union. They were traitors in EVERY SENSE.

[Obiepup]

16. WRONG!

The FFs were traitors.

The British declared them so and wanted them hung.

[NYC Liberal]

18. So the FF's were traitors but the Southerners weren't?

I assume you mean they both were.

Again, the United States won against GB. We are SEPARATE from them.

The South is a part of the US. Therefore, it is treason now. It wouldn't be if they had won.

[Obiepup]

28. That is my point

Both groups were.

[Lindacooks]

22. WRONG!!

The Confederates were traitors, not the founding fathers.

Reread what Ambushed wrote. That's accurate history.

[Obiepup]

27. Sorry

but King George declared them traitors to the Crown and they were.

Lucky them the Americans won and they didn't get hung.

[LostinVA]

77. It's "hanged," not "hung"

Sorry -- that drives me crazy. Pictures are hung, stallions are hung, but people (excluding some porn stars) are hanged. And you're not the only one I've seen do it here on DU.

[NYC Liberal]

23. Exactly.Not to mention the colonists in colonial America

had voiced their grievences NUMEROUS times before the Declaration of Independence, for years. In fact, they considered themselves Englishmen, and simply wanted the same rights as those on the mainland. They were simply looking for those basic rights and wanted to remain a part of England.

They did NOT start out by firing at GB.

[Obiepup]

30. What do you call Lexington and Concord?

They took up arms against their government at the time.

So did the CSA.

Both were wrong for doing so.

Wars don't solve a damn thing.

[RagingInMiami]

46. wars don't solve a damn thing?

Well it looks like it solved that little problem in in the 18th century with GB.

And it also solved the slavery issue.

Some wars are just. The war wer're in is not.

[BillZBubb]

69. Please. Do some reading. You are either naive or disingenuous

The colonists exhausted EVERY possible non-violent means at their disposal to gain the same rights as other Englishmen. They were rebuffed at every turn. Their only option in the end was to accept British rule without representation or to fight for their rights. Fortunately, they made the correct decision.

The treasonous Southerners on the other hand took up arms against the very government that their States had agreed to become part of. They were well represented in all legislation based on that agreement. They had Constitutional means at their disposal to try to resolve their situation. Instead they chose treason.

Your attempt at equivalency of the Revolution and the War of Southern Treason is laughable and naive. And both wars solved quite a few things. How many States have seceded since 1861? How many acts of Parliament are we forced to obey?

[LostinVA]

78. Disingenuous n/t

[Yupster]

98. The states joined the Constitutional Republic

by a vote of their state legislatures.

They left the Republic the same way.

Why would they think their actions were unconstitutional?

If it were ever said that once a state joined the Constitutional Republic, it could never leave again, the Constitution would have never passed. It barely was anyway.

[BillZBubb]

107. You need to reread your history and the Constitution.

In particular read about the "Nullification" crisis of 1832. Andrew Jackson made clear the states' limitations within the Constitution. There was also talk of Northern secession during Jefferson's term. But, nothing came of it because, among other reasons, the northern states lacked a Constitutional method for secession.

If only nine of the original states ratified the Constitution, all were still bound to the Union (Article VII). That implies that secession was not viewed as legitimate. Even those states not happy with the document bound themselves to its provisions without any explicit ability to secede. Therefore, to overcome Article VII, the Constitution would have to be amended to provide for secession. No attempt was made to do so.

Also, Congress is given power to add States to the Union (Article IV, Section 3), therefore it follows that Congress must also have a say in states leaving. That would have required amending the Constitution, OR a favorable ruling on secession by the Supreme Court (not likely!).

Article III, Section 2, gives judicial power to "...to Controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to Controversies between two or more States;...". Therefore, the act of secession violated the Constitution by not involving the judiciary PRIOR to firing on Sumpter.

Article III, Section 3 : "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them,...". That spells out pretty clearly that the southern states were traitors. Once they fired on Fort Sumpter, treason was committed.

[NYC Liberal]

74. That was only after they'd petitioned NUMEROUS times

For the same rights enjoyed by other Englishmen on the "mainland." Common Sense, the Olive Branch Petition, Declaration of Independence, amongst others.

They did want WANT to separate from England. They only did so when it became clear that GB was going to continue to oppress them and deny them basic rights.

[Yupster]

97. And the dispute between the states

just came up one Thrusday morning and bammo, we had a war.

Geeze.

[Yupster]

96. Boy if only the courts worked this efficiently

We could get the docket cleaned up in a week.

Just bring in everyone charged with serious crimes and have amBushed rule them guilty or innocent. We could have a town crier announce each evening, "amBushed has proclaimed the following people guilty of the following crimes today."

Who needs trials or defenses or juries when you have people willing to proclaim the guilt of others?

[BillZBubb]

108. Read Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,..."

Get a clue.

[raccoon]

64. In regard to what is and what isn't treason,

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."

John Harington

As we know, history is written by the victors--and the victors define what is/was treason.

[Yupster]

94. I don't think treason is a fair charge

for the following reason.

Treason is a very serious crime that you get charged, tried and convicted of. The punishment can be death.

The Confederate President Jefferson Davis (RE Lee indicted too) was indicted on the charge of treason and imprisoned until his trial.

Davis hired a high powered group of abolitionist northern lawyers to defend him. There was plenty of money since Cornelius Vanderbilt and Horace Greeley were backing his defense.

Davis's defense to the charge was a simple one. Secession was Constitutionally legal and therefore he was not a traitor, but an illegally imprisoned foreign ruler of an illegally conquered nation.

Davis begged for the government to get on with the trial so he could have his chance to prove himself innocent of the charge of treason.

The government kept delaying the trial over and over until it was just ignored. Davis was eventually released on bail paid for by Greeley and Vanderbilt, and the trial never happened.

Just as a matter of principal, picture yourself arrested for child molestation, or something even worse. You tell all your friends, family and neighbors you are absolutely innocent of the charges and can't wait for the trial to prove it.

What if the DA refuses to ever put you on trial? Instead he allows you to be bailed out of jail, and that is the end of it other than him referring to you as "that child molestor" for the rest of your life.

Do you think it fair for citizens, even generations later to refer to you as "that child molestor?"

Davis was indicted for treason. President Johnson was a lifelong personal enemy of Jefferson Davis's from long before the war.

If Johnson thought he could prove Davis a traitor and "hang old Jeff Davis from a rotten apple tree," he would have done it in a minute. The fact that he refused to put Davis on trial in my opinion means we shouldn't declare him guilty.

BTW, Lee wanted no part of any trial and just wanted to go home and put the war behind him as much as possible. He was in bad health, with a disabled wife and to him the constitutional issue was decided at Appomattox.

[BillZBubb]

109. Wow, that's a convincing "argument"!

:sarcasm:

The fact that the Union decided not to have punitive trials of the Southern Traitors has nothing to do with whether they were traitors or not. It had everything to do with the hope of putting the divisions behind them. The last thing the victorious north wanted was to give the South some martyrs to rally around.

The best thing to do was to let the traitors fade into obscurity.

Read some history. Get a clue.

[AspenRose]

2. Oh this SO has the potential for FLAMEBAIT....

....just sayin.

:popcorn:

[Lex]

3. A "captured" flag that flew in opposition to the United State of America.

That's what it is.

[Montauk6]

5. IMHO, an analogy could be made with the flag of Third Reich Germany.

[Bluerthanblue]

62. agree, for the same reason the swastika is offensive.

.- Regardless of the 'original' intent of the symbol, or whatever positive connotations it may have, the symbol represents pain, suffering, death and oppression to many.
Out of respect, and because of this, it should not be flown, or displayed with pride, without expecting controversy.

Would the FF's want the British flag flown after the revolution???-
Doubt it.

[Yupster]

101. I don't agree

The Third Reich used genocide of entire populations.

If you want an American analogy to that, I think the US flag and our genocide of the various Native American populations is a far closer analogy to the Swastika than anything the brief Southern Confederacy ever did. Don't you agree?

[Montauk6]

102. As a descendent of slaves, I would have to say no.

And, no, I'm not looking to get into whose oppression was worse; it's all evil. But one thing about the US flag, and feel free to label me naive; true there's much blood and terror in its name from day one to today, but it also came to symbolize, in certain instances, the promise and potential of freedom.

I see that in neither the swastika or the stars-n-bars. Each symbol is probably one of the final images seen respectively by victims forced into gas chambers or lynched from a tree.

[jobycom]

8. Too bad we didn't win

Then we'd have show'd you Yankee losers how to run a country. As soon as we ditched slavery. :-) We'd have made rock and roll, blues, jazz, barbecue, and everything else worth having, and you'd have had snow.

As I said, we'd have had to ditch slavery first.

[fujiyama]

38. I'll give ya jazz

simply because of New Orleans, but Blues is a Chicago thing...

You also would have had to ditch Jim Crow and the KKK. Unfortunately that spread north and Indiana became one of the biggest Klan states.

[BrendaStarr]

43. Theres a chapter near Fresno CA too.

They used to march down the street with their weapons in the 80s.

Now you know the mind set of all those Cali freepers. (Besides you only have to go to freerepublic and see it.)

[RagingInMiami]

47. The real blues was from the south

Chicago was where they went to become famous.

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. The blues comes from the Mississippi Delta, not Chicago.

Sure, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, and several others lived in Chicago, but they were born and learned their music in the South.

And you have the US Supreme Court to thank for Jim Crow, in part; and of the justices who decided Plessy v. Ferguson, only two were Southerners (one of whom, John Marshall Harlan, was the only dissenter from the majority opinion).

[napi21]

9. I felt the same way before I moved to the South in 1987.

I don't know where you live, but if you are really serious with your question, my guess is that you are a Yankee as I was.

When you come to the South, you realize these folks are still fighting the civil war. The still hate blacks, although they hide it better now. They really do still fly the Confederate Flag to show THEY haven't given in to intigration, and they're still protesting. They do what they have to do to stay out of jail, but they sure don't like it!

[RagingInMiami]

48. You think flying the flag is purely an issue of racism?

I think it has a lot to do with southern culture. Many people who fly hate the flag are more resentful and have issues with "yankees" than they do with southern blacks.

[LostinVA]

79. Not the people I know -- they like the culture of the Old South

And thats' why they fly it, and they'll tell you that's why they fly it. And what was the culture of the Old South? Go read FR.....

[Jack from Charlotte]

104. As a life long southerner, I agree completely.....

The racism down here is pervasive. Additionally, the main attitude here in the south is just plain nastiness. The nastier you are the more respected. If you aren't nasty then you're just a pussy. I could give you loads of examples....

The flag deal is just another......"FU. In your face, Black people and wussies. What are you gonna do about it.? Don't like it? Your just too PC."

Whenever I see a Confed flag I always say...."Look. They're flying the Republican Flag."

[RoyGBiv]

10. Oh, my ...

:popcorn:

[ladylibertee]

11. Okay, would you get mad if you saw a flag hanging that said....

"ALL Caucasians are a disease to the world.History teaches us that every country they go to they infect it and corrupt it.They are an evil presence that must be destroyed by lynching" The anger you may be feeling right now, if your human, is the same anger blacks feel when they see that flag.It's not the same illustration, just the same emotion that comes from the illustration.

[me b zola]

12. Let me guess. You're white, aren't you?.

Just a guess :shrug:

[ladylibertee]

29. Who me?

[AspenRose]

34. I think they were asking the original poster....

:hide:

[ladylibertee]

37. Oh, Okay. Cool

[rpannier]

57. Yes

I am white. My wife is Korean (she's from Bucheon -- where I live and work right now), my daughters are Koram (Korean-American mix). The purpose of the post is thus:
When I was in the army I served with people from Louisiana, Mississippi (although in fairness to him, he thought the flag sucked), Georgia, etc who proudly displayed their flag on their cars. I found arguing with them a waste of time, because they were/are unwilling to see the "Stars and Bars" for what it was/is (not all of these people are racists, in fact, one of the women was married to a black man, they saw the flag as southern pride). What I found was, what got them really pissed off (because they couldn't spin) was that it's the symbol of the losing side. So, I'd tell em, "It says to me, I associate with losers and I'm proud of it."

[LostinVA]

80. I think the Stars and Bars is a different flag

The popular CSA flag is the Battle Flag. Am I right?

[rpannier]

93. Yes you are

It is the Battle Flag

[countmyvote4real]

15. zzzzzzzzz

How can I say this better than that? I am barely outraged by this belated outrage when there are so many more timely events that might be more outrageous.

On second thought, better late than never

[jobycom]

21. Why isn't this crap locked yet?

[Skittles]

40. it is a legitimate question

I wonder the same thing every time I see that piece of shit flag displayed on a truck window

[hlthe2b]

24. Once upon a time, it was merely a historical relic... a symbol

of a painful schism in our history. But, those who intentionally brought it back in the 60s--to exploit racist views in opposition to those fighting for civil rights-- forever imprinted it as a symbol of bigotry.

For those who want to naively view the flag as a mere symbol of heritage, the failure to contest those who sought to exploit it as a symbol of racial hatred, purged the flag of any benign symbolism. Forever more the flag conveys pain, exploitation, bigotry, and overt hatred. It is no longer possible to ignore the baggage this symbol carries. To do so, is to justify the hatred.

The flag belongs in the museum. End of story, in my opinion.

[mestup]

25. My thoughts exactly! n/t

[Mr Blonde]

26. Losers

The Stars and Bars and the Battle Flag are indeed symbols of TREASON. The Confederates were traitors to this country. Dividing this great nation just so they could keep their slaves. Many old-school crackers and eggheads alike claim that the war was over "states rights." And I agree...a states "right" to keep the black man in chains. That ain't the right of anyone.

[Yupster]

99. The States' Rights issue is an interesting one

Here's my take on it.

A 19 year old girl is living at home and has a boyfriend who's a drug addict and she takes drugs herself.

Her parents tell her that unless she gives up her drug-addled boyfriend, and gets clean herself, she will have to move out. The young woman says she's old enough to make her own rules and pick her own friends.

The young woman is kicked out of the house.

Why?

Ask the parents and they'll say because she wouldn't give up drugs and her druggie beau.

Ask the young woman and she'll say it's because her parents wouldn't let her run her own life.

Who's right?

They both are, and that's the same thing with secession.

The south says it seceeded to run its own affairs. The north says the south seceeded because it wouldn't give up slavery.

They're both right.

[ladylibertee]

31. Thank You, my friend.Thank You ! A REAL Democrat has spoken

[hlthe2b]

67. now, THAT's a compliment! thank you.....

[VOX]

58. As author Shelby Foote said, "the Confederate flag was co-opted by yahoos."

Well said, hlthe2b.

Your thoughtful remarks immediately brought to mind what the late author Shelby Foote wrote of the Klansmen who had appropriated the flag: “I tell them to their faces that they are the scum who have degraded the Confederate flag, converted it from a symbol of honor into a banner of shame, covered it with obscenities like a roadhouse men’s room wall.”

[hlthe2b]

65. thank you.....

I lived in the heart of the South for a number of years. I found a deep sadness and sincerity among a number of long term residents that this and other symbols of their historical past had become so entertwined with overtly evil objectives. It is not unlike the shame I feel for the image of the US that the Bushies* have put forth to the world. Our US flag carries quite a bit of tarnish, now. Whether this will be temporary, remains to be seen.

[Book Lover]

32. I cannot effing believe it is 2005 and DU is refighting the Civil War

I will readily admit that I have been guilty of this in the past, but it is so time to get over it. Nobody wins a civil war. America sure didn't get stronger because of it. But it sure serves to fuel hate and sow mistrust.

[RagingInMiami]

49. We are in a Civil War right now

And it's not really the north against the south, it's neighbor against neighbor, co-worker against co-worker, friend against friend and family member against family member.

It's blue against red.

[Book Lover]

51. I won't disagree with your assessment (nm)

[ladylibertee]

54. Welcome to the United States of America.It hasn't left.Are you

surprised or do you belong to a race of people who have never been effected by this?

[Book Lover]

91. As surprising as it may seem to you, yes

The Civil War is a nonissue where I grew up.

[Dr Fate]

33. I'm from GA- I get very uneasy when I see it.

Most people who fly it should generally be avoided.

[AspenRose]

35. Unfortunately it's beyond the south now...a "state of mind"

I actually saw someone flying the stars and bars outside their home in COLORADO....between Ouray and Telluride. Gave me chills.

Edit: They have the right to do that, it's their home, but....no American flag, no Colorado state flag....just the stars and bars. That's unnerving.

[Kerrytravelers]

36. When I protested the shrub coming to Rancho Cucomoungo the Monday

Katrina hit, there was some rethug white guys out there with no shirt on, flying that flag along side the American flag in the center of the freepers... who were appauding him.

That's why I live in blue Pasadena. I tip my hat to all those who live in rethug areas. It must be hard.

[Alamom]

52. A "State of Mind" in many areas of the country

Haters of tolerance & peace can be found in most every State. Very few states are free of hate-groups or organizations. Many people may be surprised just "Who" is in their own state or hometown and what they are doing. One well known group who keeps up with these activities can be found here. I'm sure there are others.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

Active U.S. Hate Groups

(check your state)

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp






The Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center was founded in 1971 as a small civil rights law firm. Today, the Center is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups.

Located in Montgomery, Alabama – the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement – the Center was founded by Morris Dees and Joe Levin, two local lawyers who shared a commitment to racial equality. Its first president was civil rights activist Julian Bond.

Throughout its history, the Center has worked to make the nation's Constitutional ideals a reality. The Center's legal department fights all forms of discrimination and works to protect society's most vulnerable members, handling innovative cases that few lawyers are willing to take. Over three decades, it has achieved significant legal victories, including landmark Supreme Court decisions and crushing jury verdicts against hate groups.

In 1981, the Center began investigating hate activity in response to a resurgence of groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Today the Center's Intelligence Project monitors hate groups and tracks extremist activity throughout the U.S. It provides comprehensive updates to law enforcement, the media and the public through its quarterly magazine, Intelligence Report. Staff members regularly conduct training sessions for police, schools, and civil rights and community groups, and they often serve as experts at hearings and conferences.
more...

http://www.splcenter.org/center/about.jsp





National Attention
Though vilified by extremists, the Center's work has also earned widespread acclaim. Today, thousands of individuals nationwide are loyal contributors to the Center.


Organizations such as the American Bar Association, the National Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, and the Friends of the United Nations recognized the Center as a leader in anti-bias litigation and education.
President Clinton's Initiative on Race cited the Center's tolerance education work as a national model.

There is no doubt the Center's work will still be needed in years to come. As America grows more diverse, the Center will continue to promote and protect our nation's most cherished democratic ideals.

http://www.splcenter.org/center/history/history.jsp

[bunkerbuster1]

60. I've been in GA only a few years

but for what it's worth, if anything I see fewer of them of late than I did just a few years ago.

Maybe one car in 30 or 40 has some stupid Dixie flag front-plate or sticker. It pisses me off that it's considered socially acceptable, and I deliberately chose not to hire one contractor who had such a loser-decal on his truck... but let's do keep it in perspective

Yes, there are plenty of southern yahoos who pine for a past that never was, and they are tenacious and yell a lot.

but I don't think it's anything like a majority opinion among white residents in the south, overall, any more. You might get a thin majority of white southerners to say the flag is more about "heritage" than about supporting slavery and oppression of black folks, but I do think that stand is more about solidarity against (stupidly, paranoid) perceived Northern "elitism" than anything else.

[Skittles]

39. that piece of shit flag makes me sick

:puke:

[DanCa]

41. It's perspective -

When i see it i think of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show thats my first response. Others think of it as slavery. Some see southren rock bands.

[ladylibertee]

55. GEE I wonder why you can only see the good in it.Tell me, what

do you think of when you see a swats sticka?(SP) of a burning cross? of a white sheet with a hood? Dukes of hazard ? or old Ronald Regan movies?Do share what wonderful thoughts come in your head when you see symbols of hatred.

[NYC Liberal]

72. When *I* see a swastika, the first thing I think of is the Tibetan

good luck charm.

Doesn't everyone? :shurg:

[Yupster]

100. When I went to New Mexico State University

the Yearbook was named the Swastika.

It was changed by the state Regents while I was there.

PS - It was the Zuni symbol for the sun and was the Yearbook's name long before Hitler came around.

[ladylibertee]

56. Gee, I wonder why you can only see the good in it.Tell me,

what do you see when you see a burning cross? or a white gown with a hood? old Cow Boy movies? Please tell us what wonderful thoughts come to mind when you see other symbols of hatred.

[AspenRose]

44. Ah, is THIS why the topic came up....?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1824909

[rpannier]

45. Yes

Partly. And whenever I can get a dig at the "stars and bars" loving crowd I take it. I find their level of reasoning as to why the fly that flag to be appalingly ignorant. But, I have found using humor to
be much more effective in dealing with them, then by arguing and getting angry.

[Sgent]

50. Slavery was the reason for the War

Reconstruction is why many Southerners have a huge resentment towards the federal government and "Yankees".

Germany started WWII essentially as a revolt against the way they were treated after WWI. Be thankful the South hasn't started a Second War Between the States. This is the mindset that still permeates the region. When we have every social ill and poverty unlike most people can imagine, due to the actions Reconstruction, people will lash out at their percieved opressors -- right or wrong.

[elehhhhna]

63. Self-Identified Idiots are A-Okay in my book! Warn me.

PLEASE.

I want to see 'em coming from a distance.

[Mr_Spock]

71. I don't see the big deal either. It just say's "destroy my vehicle"

and "burn my house down" to me :shrug:

[BootinUp]

73. Whats so hard to understand?

It reminds us that bigotry and racism is still alive. "We know best how to treat our blackies..." Leave us the fuck alone you federal bullies or we'll go to war again!

Not saying everyone who flies it thinks that way, but there's still plenty of rednecks that are/were raised up to be that way.

[LostinVA]

75. I don't get all the furor over people flying the Nazi flag

To me it just says, "I associate with losers and I'm proud of it."

[DemocracyInaction]

83. The South also had desires of "southern expansion" (Cuba, etc.)

Just now reading Shelbty Foote's three huge Civil War volumes. There were numerous things going on at once. One of which was the South envisioning itself as the power seat of an expanded country. They desired Cuba, Mexico, parts of Central America and parts of South America. They had more on their mind than cotton and slaves. They had an aristocracy that was thinking very much like that same type of tyranny that ruled Europe for centuries. And, there was real concern that they would (and they tried but were told to go shove it) to bring in powers like Britain and France again over on this continent which eventually would have meant a renewed effort to wipe out the government of the United States. They thought "Cotton was King" but the warehouses of Europe were full of cotton from a bumper crop. Wheat became King because Britain had a bad crop and the MidWest farmers got rich supplying the wheat. Had the warehouses not been full in Europe, the South would have had no objection to having the US of A attacked by European powers. They can put as much cotton candy they want on the whole sticky mess---they were traitors for the personal enrichment of a few and the masses of uneducated were the vassels that went along fighting for them. The more I read of this magnificient volume written by a brilliant Southern gentleman, the more I see things that I swear to God are right off the front pages of today's newspapers. INDEED and no doubt--we ARE still fighting a mentality that has been alive and well for 150 years. The North doesn't realize it because the Civil War is ancient history to them.

[Zomby Woof]

85. What bothers me about them

Is that they get the meaning of the flag less than the haters of them do. THAT is where the real damage occurs.

It was hijacked by the KKK years ago, so I can see why people are repulsed by it. But the KKK doesn't own it, so fuck them.

But...

For those who fly it based on its original intent (it was the battle flag of The Army of Northern Virginia, not the national flag - so it was used as a symbol of unity and pride for going their own way), or historical recreation, I can understand it.

That, and it is just a symbol. I am more concerned about the ACTIONS of the flag flyers than the symbolism they get caught up in. You too, allow yourself to get caught up in it if you let your hatred take over.

Besides, slavery was justified by our revered Constitution for MANY years, and slavery/Jim Crow was condoned by the very stars and stripes we get all creamy in our pants about every time it goes up a pole. Where's the angst over that?

Let 'em fly it. It's supposed to be a free country.

Recommended reading: "Confederates In The Attic", by Tony Horwitz

[Igel]

89. They get the meaning of the flag less than the haters of them do?

Non-representational symbols have inherent meaning?

I always thought the very idea of 'symbol' was its meaning was strictly conventional within a community, and in the case of a symbol that wasn't settled by convention meant what the user intended and for the interpreter to figure out.

So <y> stands for a high front rounded vowel in the International Phonetic alphabet (written 'u' in French), but for a high rounded back vowel in the Cyrillic alphabet, and in Spanish orthography only stands for a high front unrounded glide, but in English may stand either for a high front vowel or a high front glide; in Hungarian it indicates that a consonant is palatal, not a vowel at all (e.g., 'Magyar'). Notice the different conventions. As a Slavist, of course, I sometimes use my own (Slavistic) convention in addition to those, and unapproved by any of the above: <y> stands for a high unrounded *central* vowel. Which I intend at any given time, of course, is up to me. But it's always strange to see somebody insisting on interpreting the symbol only within their presumed framework.

There's only confusion if I don't abide by other people's expectations and interpretation. But I'm allowed to ignore other people's expectations, and consider what I intend by my use of a symbol to be definitive as to my intention.

[dogday]

103. Let's talk about the real tragedy of this country...

The rampant massacre of the Indians, you know the indigenous people of this Country. What do you think the American Flag means to them? That was the flag flying whenever their people were massacred by our people. Should we hate the flag and what it stands for. It does stand for that and now for the massacre of Iraqi citizens, but yet it stands for a united country, ours as well.

Do you think as we look back years from now, we will understand flags and their history's or what they mean to some people. I am against any type of suppression, whatever the reasons. I have just showed you that the American Flag is loved and despised by others and so is the Confederate Flag and So is The Christian Flag. Yet they still all fly...

[QC]

86. It's an opportunity for safe sanctimony.

Some people love nothing more than a chance to stand up and declare their wondrous moral purity without having to worry that someone else might disagree with them. This is a perfect issue, since no one on a liberal board is going to speak up in defense of slavery, the KKK, etc.

It's also a good pretext for a South-bashing flamewar, another great pleasure for many people here.

[Igel]

90. I do, but I find it misplaced.

I've sometimes asked what they mean by it. And I've gotten a lot of answers. I tell them what I think it means, and we discuss it, but I can't force them to adopt my meaning.

If there's evidence that they're racist and lying, get indignant. But if they say they fly it because it indicates teen rebellion, and that's all the evidence there is that they're racist, take 'em at their word.

[greblc]

92. 2 words

We won.

[Jack from Charlotte]

105. 6 words............

Thank God the right side won.

I could not accurately say "We won" since, regrettably, my relations fought for the wrong side.

[skooooo]

106. Confederates = traitors

[The Magistrate]

110. Locking

This has begun to eat its tail.