NationStates Jolt Archive

So I was on the forum reading a thread about minority entitlements and I was accused of being a racist, so I was just wondering who on here thought that displaying the confederate flag or battle flag automatically made a person a racist and, apparently in some countries, guilty of a hate crime. I think it odd that at my school people are allowed to support communism, anarchy, legalised drugs, the "black power" movement(to read as anti-white hate groups in the vein of the black panthers), and various other movements that are considered improper and not PC, but wearing the battle flag is enough to get a person I know suspended for three days for refusing to change his shirt, discussion and well reasoned opinions are welcome, cat-tribe and dobbs town are not.

Everything you listed is improper.

The Confederate flag is reminiscent of racism. You have to remember, the entire reason the Confederacy receded from the union was due to economy. The primary source of revenue from the south was agriculture and of course agriculture was mainly based on slavery.

The civil war itself wasn't fought over slavery, it was an economic issue. The north was a threat to the souths economy with their industrialization. Anyone who says that the war was fought to end slavery is just regurgitating propaganda.

Showing the confederate flag is just another symbol that promotes slavery, regardless of how deep rooted in the culture it is.

The Confederate Flag, the symbol is *not* a racist symbol. The South seceeded from the US over the issue of tarrifs, NOT the issue of slavery.

Read about it here (http://www.patriotist.com/miscarch/jm20021104.htm)

So I was on the forum reading a thread about minority entitlements and I was accused of being a racist, so I was just wondering who on here thought that displaying the confederate flag or battle flag automatically made a person a racist and, apparently in some countries, guilty of a hate crime. I think it odd that at my school people are allowed to support communism, anarchy, legalised drugs, the "black power" movement(to read as anti-white hate groups in the vein of the black panthers), and various other movements that are considered improper and not PC, but wearing the battle flag is enough to get a person I know suspended for three days for refusing to change his shirt, discussion and well reasoned opinions are welcome, cat-tribe and dobbs town are not.
hhhmm. thats funny, i was accused of being a racist as well. only difference is, is that I am willing to admit i am not 100% tolerant of everyone.
i would like to know what district you go to school in. if you are willing to put up the information, i am going to call them, and ask about what , exactly, samples of communism shirts, drug shirts, and black power t shirts they have allowed. i will also request the suspension report of the person with the conferderate flag shirt , with his/her name blacked out, if it is true that the other shirts have been allowed. i have done this before, and when asked, i have recieved a suspension report of not only a battle flag shirt wearer,but
a kiid who wore a "asians really are smarter than you" shirt, another kid s report who was suspended fr a shirt with malcom x on the front, and the slogan"black pride is black power. uprise and overcome", and finally, a kid who was thrown out for a week with a shirt that said" racism sucks" ( the word sucks was deemed inappropriate language. so, miehm, put your money where your mouth is.

"Showing the confederate flag is just another symbol that promotes slavery"

I live in texas, and basically every other person has a bumper sticker, poster, decal, or even an acctual replication of the confederate flag. Even though some people have it to represent the flag, i agree that it is a symbol that promotes slavery... not to mention a very high majority of people who own the flag are racist themselves

Twodayoldburrito']"Showing the confederate flag is just another symbol that promotes slavery"

I live in texas, and basically every other person has a bumper sticker, poster, decal, or even an acctual replication of the confederate flag. Even though some people have it to represent the flag, i agree that it is a symbol that promotes slavery... not to mention a very high majority of people who own the flag are racist themselves

Most guys that I have met that have the confederate flag are some of the nicest guys I have ever met. I think that most people really don't know what the confederate flag truly means. Although it's not THE symbol for slavery, it does promote the legacy of slavery.

I will remind everyone that the discussion that spawned this is still locked pending Moderator review. As the matter stands, several players are facing forumbans already.

If the same brouhaha that happened over there happens over here before the other thread has been reviewed, then those would would have faced forumbans will instead face deletion-without-warning. I did not lock that thread so that you people could go at each others throats in a new thread.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

The confederate flag can be taken in many ways. As I would take it, it is a battle flag. Just as I would look at the soviet hammer and cycle ( my nation's flag) or a nazi germany battle flag. In this way, I don't look at it as a symbol, I see it as just a flag. Now, it depends on the thoughts attached to this flag and what one thinks when they see the flag. Most see the confederate flag as a sign of racism/ slavery. Others see it as a symbol of rebellion. I see it as a fallen flag of a old nation. I can also see it echoing the mistakes of the past. To ban this flag, as with any other, would be like forgetting history.

The Confederate Flag, the symbol is *not* a racist symbol. The South seceeded from the US over the issue of tarrifs, NOT the issue of slavery.


You may be technically correct, but it's now been associated with that and it's unlikely to ever lose that stain.

Kind of like how the Nazi's didn't invent the swastika...

Given that Lincoln set the slaves free as a matter of expediency the confed. flag is no more racist than the Flag in use by the Union during the Civil War.

It's unfortunate, but the flag has become a symbol of slavery. Just like the swastika has become a symbol of anti-Semitism and genocide, or the hammer and sickle has become a symbol of oppression and death. Displaying a Confederate flag does not inherently make one a bigot, but you can't be surprised if people make that assumption of you, based on what the flag has come to represent. You would certainly make assumptions of someone who displayed a Nazi flag or a USSR flag, don't you think?

Given that Lincoln set the slaves free as a matter of expediency the confed. flag is no more racist than the Flag in use by the Union during the Civil War.
Not at all. While it is true that the North wasn't fighting the war to end slavery, the south was by and large fighting it to keep slavery, and therefore the use of the Confederate flag is racist, as display of the swastika is. However I don't believe those things in and of themselves should be considered to be hate crimes, they're simply free speech. (Incidentally there are examples of free speech that are hate crimes, but those two aren't.)

*sighs* Being a northerner in the south, I am very aware of the Confederate Flags waving everywhere. To me they're funny. I will grant that most of the good ol' boy southerners I've met are racist. However, that's not what that flag means to them. It's a symbol of rebellion and heritage. When all the southern states were discussing whether to remove it from their flags, the white people wanted it gone more than the black people. Why? Well my first guess is that the people that wanted it gone had no clue what it meant. Transplants, city folk and such. The other is that white people have been made to feel sorry about being white. We're being told what evil people we were for having slaves. I don't have any slaves. I never have had any slaves. I don't think I owe any black men or women anything for what someone else did. Will I tell a joke about a black man and his curly hair. On occasion. Will I tell a joke about what a small dick I have cause I'm white. On occasion. Not a bit. I have much respect for a black man that I can trust, just like a white man that I can trust. And there's been more than one black man I've seen with a confederate flag sticker on his truck. Must be some Uncle Tom, brainwashed by the white man to turn on his race. :eek:

Racism or not, I really don't care.

But I've always wondered why people take such a romanticised view of losers.

The Confederacy lost! The Nazis lost! Why the hell would anyone want to wear the loser's mark on their person?

I don't see people scampering to put the SOuth Vietnamese flag on their truck bumper. :p

It really depends on the person who's flaunting it. A lot of them are just stupid people who think the South is superior to every other part of the country. Some of them are Nazi Skinheads. Some of them are just joking.

Like I said, it really depends.

The Confederate Flag, the symbol is *not* a racist symbol. The South seceeded from the US over the issue of tarrifs, NOT the issue of slavery.

Read about it here (http://www.patriotist.com/miscarch/jm20021104.htm)

Yeah you are right, someone asked Lincoln if he would let the south go peacefully and he said no, what would become of my tarrif?

The CBF is not a racist symbal its a symbol of wanting to be their own country.

I will remind everyone that the discussion that spawned this is still locked pending Moderator review. As the matter stands, several players are facing forumbans already.

If the same brouhaha that happened over there happens over here before the other thread has been reviewed, then those would would have faced forumbans will instead face deletion-without-warning. I did not lock that thread so that you people could go at each others throats in a new thread.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Which thread is this?

edit: never mind, I found it.

Most guys that I have met that have the confederate flag are some of the nicest guys I have ever met. I think that most people really don't know what the confederate flag truly means. Although it's not THE symbol for slavery, it does promote the legacy of slavery.

Yah, maybe they're just big Dukes of Hazzard fans (the famous car "General Lee" had the Confederate flag painted on the roof). Maybe some of them really are racist. But to see someone with a decal on their car/truck and assume that they're racist... is to make a leap of abstraction.

Yeah you are right, someone asked Lincoln if he would let the south go peacefully and he said no, what would become of my tarrif?

The CBF is not a racist symbal its a symbol of wanting to be their own country.

Lincoln's main concern was preserving the Union.

Yah, maybe they're just big Dukes of Hazzard fans (the famous car "General Lee" had the Confederate flag painted on the roof). Maybe some of them really are racist. But to see someone with a decal on their car/truck and assume that they're racist... is to make a leap of abstraction.

I run into people in convenience stores who have Confederate flags on their trucks, and they're usually pretty nice.

Yah, maybe they're just big Dukes of Hazzard fans (the famous car "General Lee" had the Confederate flag painted on the roof). Maybe some of them really are racist. But to see someone with a decal on their car/truck and assume that they're racist... is to make a leap of abstraction.

I completely agree with you. That would be the same kind of ignorance that usually leads to racism itself.

I will remind everyone that the discussion that spawned this is still locked pending Moderator review. As the matter stands, several players are facing forumbans already.

If the same brouhaha that happened over there happens over here before the other thread has been reviewed, then those would would have faced forumbans will instead face deletion-without-warning. I did not lock that thread so that you people could go at each others throats in a new thread.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator
sir cogitation,i have a few questions on the complaint over inmoderation about me. i posted them on the thread.

The confed. flag a symbol of slavery? Get real. Under that line of reasoning every east african and middle east country flag should be a symbol of slavery. Slavery was NOT only white-on-blacks during that time period. It existed for hundreds of years before and still happens today. Why are we, in the western world, forced to take an imperialist guilt trip over it? It wasnt like they went round hunting the africans, the tribal leaders SOLD them to the westerners.

Bearing this in mind, should i look upon the Iranian, Saudi Arabian and Yemen flags as ever-present signs of slavery? Or are we all grown up enough to realise that our role is WELL in the past, we need not be perpetually reminined of it by the damned PC brigade.

I'd say that the flag was made racist by its association with extremists, the Klan and others. Had it been used solely by veterans, descendants of veterans, and for its historical purpose of commemorating the Confederate side of the civil war, then it wouldn't have any negative association.

I'd say that the flag was made racist by its association with extremists, the Klan and others. Had it been used solely by veterans, descendants of veterans, and for its historical purpose of commemorating the Confederate side of the civil war, then it wouldn't have any negative association.

Good point. It didn't pick up racist meaning until it was used by racists.

So I was on the forum reading a thread about minority entitlements and I was accused of being a racist, so I was just wondering who on here thought that displaying the confederate flag or battle flag automatically made a person a racist and, apparently in some countries, guilty of a hate crime. I think it odd that at my school people are allowed to support communism, anarchy, legalised drugs, the "black power" movement(to read as anti-white hate groups in the vein of the black panthers), and various other movements that are considered improper and not PC, but wearing the battle flag is enough to get a person I know suspended for three days for refusing to change his shirt, discussion and well reasoned opinions are welcome, cat-tribe and dobbs town are not.

Although I intend to be concise and respectful, I wish to clarify some things.

I believe the Confederate flag or battle flag is a racist symbol. We had a whole third thread on this subject. I won't rehash it here. I will simply note it arguably original symbolized treason and slavery and then became a primary symbol of segregation and the KKK.

I do not believe displaying the Confederate flag or battle flag "automatically [makes] one a racist." To the contrary, many -- if not most -- do not display those flags with that conscious intent. I think it is insenstive and sometimes a result of ignorance to fly those flags, but not necessarily indicative of racism.

Displaying the Confederate flag or battle flag is definitely not a hate crime in the United States. In fact, a hate crime in the United States is not actually a seperate crime as such but exists when one commits other crimes with a hateful intent against another based on race, religion, gender, etc. It results in an enhanced sentenced if one is convicted of the underlying crime and the hate crime elements are additionally proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have no idea what is and is not allowed at your school or why. If it is as you describe it, it may surprise you that I find that unfair -- although there may be some additional reasons of which I am unaware. If the matter hasn't been litigated already, you might wish to contact the local ACLU.

I'd say that the flag was made racist by its association with extremists, the Klan and others. Had it been used solely by veterans, descendants of veterans, and for its historical purpose of commemorating the Confederate side of the civil war, then it wouldn't have any negative association.

The US flag (and pictures of George Washington) was used quite promenently by American Nazis right before we joined World War II. DOes that taint the American flag beyond use? I hope not.

Also, the idea that the battle flag stands for slavery seems fairly bogus to me. It was used in the field by soldiers. About 3/4 of the whites in the South did not own slaves, since they were too poor to support them. These poorer classes also were the ones who predominately made up the ranks in the Confederate Army. Those soldiers (mostly) didn't care one bit about slaves, one way of the other. They were fighting against what they saw as a tyrannical North. Hence the name "War of Northern Aggression."

The US flag (and pictures of George Washington) was used quite promenently by American Nazis right before we joined World War II. DOes that taint the American flag beyond use? I hope not.

No, because it both had a well established prior reputation, I 'd say.

The US flag (and pictures of George Washington) was used quite promenently by American Nazis right before we joined World War II. DOes that taint the American flag beyond use? I hope not.

Also, the idea that the battle flag stands for slavery seems fairly bogus to me. It was used in the field by soldiers. About 3/4 of the whites in the South did not own slaves, since they were too poor to support them. These poorer classes also were the ones who predominately made up the ranks in the Confederate Army. Those soldiers (mostly) didn't care one bit about slaves, one way of the other. They were fighting against what they saw as a tyrannical North. Hence the name "War of Northern Aggression."

I don't think it was the confederate soldiers in the 1860s that gave the flag racist meaning. I think it was the sheet-wearing, cross-burning, church-bombing assholes in the 1950s who waved the flag around while doing their dirty deeds that gave it racist meaning.

Slavery was NOT only white-on-blacks during that time period. It existed for hundreds of years before and still happens today. Why are we, in the western world, forced to take an imperialist guilt trip over it? It wasnt like they went round hunting the africans, the tribal leaders SOLD them to the westerners.But nonetheless, the Americans bought the slaves, and are therefore culpable in our part.


Bearing this in mind, should i look upon the Iranian, Saudi Arabian and Yemen flags as ever-present signs of slavery? Or are we all grown up enough to realise that our role is WELL in the past, we need not be perpetually reminined of it by the damned PC brigade.
That depends, were the Iranian, Saudi, etc. flags created by groups whose main purpose was to institutionalize or keep slavery?

No, because it both had a well established prior reputation, I 'd say.

You mean like the swastika has a long (read: millenia) reputation before the Nazis used it? It was used by both the Greeks and the (Asian) Indians before the birth of Christ.

You mean like the swastika has a long (read: millenia) reputation before the Nazis used it? It was used by both the Greeks and the (Asian) Indians before the birth of Christ.

Good point. I think the only difference being is that the US flag had become associated with the ideas the Nazis opposed (albeit many of these liberties were restricted to people by race) and so when the American Nazis used it it was ignored.

The Confederate flag didn't have this association so this abuse was far more damaging.

Good point. I think the only difference being is that the US flag had become associated with the ideas the Nazis opposed (albeit many of these liberties were restricted to people by race) and so when the American Nazis used it it was ignored.

The Confederate flag didn't have this association so this abuse was far more damaging.

Damaging or not, we should be able to see through the abuse heaped on it by the KKK and others and discard it. There is nothing inherently wrong in the symbol.

The Confederate Flag, the symbol is *not* a racist symbol. The South seceeded from the US over the issue of tarrifs, NOT the issue of slavery.

Read about it here (http://www.patriotist.com/miscarch/jm20021104.htm)

Untrue.

Those states that published Declarations of Secession primarily raised the issue of slavery and the reason. You can read the Declarations here (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html).

My personal favorite is Mississippi's which states in the second paragraph (emphasis added):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Slavery was not the only issue -- tariffs were an issue -- but it was the primary reason the Southern states seceded.

hhhmm. thats funny, i was accused of being a racist as well. only difference is, is that I am willing to admit i am not 100% tolerant of everyone.
i would like to know what district you go to school in. if you are willing to put up the information, i am going to call them, and ask about what , exactly, samples of communism shirts, drug shirts, and black power t shirts they have allowed. i will also request the suspension report of the person with the conferderate flag shirt , with his/her name blacked out, if it is true that the other shirts have been allowed. i have done this before, and when asked, i have recieved a suspension report of not only a battle flag shirt wearer,but
a kiid who wore a "asians really are smarter than you" shirt, another kid s report who was suspended fr a shirt with malcom x on the front, and the slogan"black pride is black power. uprise and overcome", and finally, a kid who was thrown out for a week with a shirt that said" racism sucks" ( the word sucks was deemed inappropriate language. so, miehm, put your money where your mouth is.

Virginia'as Prince william county, at OPHS, the communist supporting shirts they have allowed are the ones with the hispanic dude, I forget his name right now, they made a movie about him if thats any help, the black power shirts were malcolm x and a photo from the olympic games(don't remember which year, but it caused alot of contreversey) with two of the winning athletes wearing black gloves with raised fists and the caption reads "black power lives on", as for drug shirts, they allow shirts that are questionable, ie. ones with a rapper smokin a doobie, a pot leaf in place of the maple leaf on the canadian flag and one that just had a pot leaf on it. That enough info for you?

Untrue.

Those states that published Declarations of Secession primarily raised the issue of slavery and the reason. You can read the Declarations here (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html).

My personal favorite is Mississippi's which states in the second paragraph (emphasis added):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Slavery was not the only issue -- tariffs were an issue -- but it was the primary reason the Southern states seceded.

All right cat tribe, the topic at debate is NOT wether or not the civil war was over slavery, the topic is wether or not displaying the confederate flag is a hate crime. Discuss the topic at hand, not the topic you want to discuss.

cat-tribe and dobbs town are not.
Sorry, you've lost me here. Once we start dictating who can and can not participate in a thread, this no longer becomes an open forum.

I will remind everyone that the discussion that spawned this is still locked pending Moderator review. As the matter stands, several players are facing forumbans already.

If the same brouhaha that happened over there happens over here before the other thread has been reviewed, then those would would have faced forumbans will instead face deletion-without-warning. I did not lock that thread so that you people could go at each others throats in a new thread.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Sorry, my intent was to gather opinions about wether or not the flag is a hate crime, not to spark another debate, I've got a bad track record with those.

Sorry, you've lost me here. Once we start dictating who can and can not participate in a thread, this no longer becomes an open forum.

The reason is that if they were to start posting here it would swiftly devolve into a flame-fest or the original intent of the thread would quickly be subsumed by their biases and the discussion would turn to wether or not I was a NS, AN, WP, or whatever acronym you choose for a member of the Klan or neo-nazi party, not wther or not flying the flag is a hate crime.

I'd say that the flag was made racist by its association with extremists, the Klan and others. Had it been used solely by veterans, descendants of veterans, and for its historical purpose of commemorating the Confederate side of the civil war, then it wouldn't have any negative association.


The battle flag is not the only one in question here, please consider lesser known flags, such as the stars and bars(the battle flag is not the stars and bars), the southern cross, and the various other battle flags, not just the well known red flag with blue diagonals and stars in the stripes.

The reason is that if they were to start posting here it would swiftly devolve into a flame-fest or the original intent of the thread would quickly be subsumed by their biases and the discussion would turn to wether or not I was a NS, AN, WP, or whatever acronym you choose for a member of the Klan or neo-nazi party, not wther or not flying the flag is a hate crime.
I've just checked the mod thread, so I kind of know the history on that now. Still, if people flame you, the mods will deal with it. It doesn't mean you will have to flame back. Again, let the mods decide who participates and who doesn't.

Back to your regular program...

It all depends on where and who you are. In the south the confederate flag is a part of their history and heritage. Under the right circumstances it doesn't stand for anything other than an unashamed pride in one's heritage. In most other circumstances however it is a symbol of racism and opression. That association may not be entirely historically accurate, but it is there, in the minds of both those who object to it and those who embrace it.

I've just checked the mod thread, so I kind of know the history on that now. Still, if people flame you, the mods will deal with it. It doesn't mean you will have to flame back. Again, let the mods decide who participates and who doesn't.

Back to your regular program...

All righty, so whats your opinion? I personally believe in the old heritage not hate bit, but most seem to think that heritage equals hate, thoughts, opinions, random interjections? The reason for the preceding statement is because, in all honesty, those most offended by the confederate flag wouldn't recognize it if it bit them on the ass, since the only confederate flag they usually know of is the battle flag, and maybe the southern cross, the battle flag and the national flag are two different things, which most peope don't seem to realize.

It all depends on where and who you are. In the south the confederate flag is a part of their history and heritage. Under the right circumstances it doesn't stand for anything other than an unashamed pride in one's heritage. In most other circumstances however it is a symbol of racism and opression. That association may not be entirely historically accurate, but it is there, in the minds of both those who object to it and those who embrace.

See my previous post, cause I'm too lazy to explain it again :p .

All righty, so whats your opinion? I personally believe in the old heritage not hate bit, but most seem to think that heritage equals hate, thoughts, opinions, random interjections? The reason for the preceding statement is because, in all honesty, those most offended by the confederate flag wouldn't recognize it if it bit them on the ass, since the only confederate flag they usually know of is the battle flag, and maybe the southern cross, the battle flag and the national flag are two different things, which most peope don't seem to realize.
Want my real opinion? I think kids should be in uniforms in school. Problem solved.

Want my real opinion? I think kids should be in uniforms in school. Problem solved.

Not exactly what I had in mind, the clothes issue would be solved, but my question was more concerning the flag in general, not just the shirts that show it.

Not exactly what I had in mind, the clothes issue would be solved, but my question was more concerning the flag in general, not just the shirts that show it.
Frankly, I don't think you can avoid the connotations of racism that are indelibly attached to this symbol. If people want to sport racist symbols in public, so be it. That will not free them from the responsibility of explaining their actions to those who are offended, but a free country should respect their right to do it.

And yet I support the restriction of such freedom in schools. I'm a contradictory sort.

Frankly, I don't think you can avoid the connotations of racism that are indelibly attached to this symbol. If people want to sport racist symbols in public, so be it. That will not free them from the responsibility of explaining their actions to those who are offended, but a free country should respect their right to do it.

And yet I support the restriction of such freedom in schools. I'm a contradictory sort.

Very well said, but I'm really curious how you can support, as you yourself stated, such seemingly contradictory sentiments in the same post, if, as you say, it is a free country, then shouldn't we be allowed to wear what we wish in the nations public schools?

people are allowed to support communism, anarchy, legalised drugs, the "black power" movement
How are communism, anarchy and drugs hateful? Black power is racist however. I don't think that people should be punished for wearing confederate flags.

Want my real opinion? I think kids should be in uniforms in school. Problem solved.
Uniforms are horrible. I had to tolerate one in secondary school for 6 years.

Very well said, but I'm really curious how you can support, as you yourself stated, such seemingly contradictory sentiments in the same post, if, as you say, it is a free country, then shouldn't we be allowed to wear what we wish in the nations public schools?
Nope.

I can support it because I AM contradictory and have no problems with it:).

Public schools are funded publicly. Schools are NOT, however, public property. Quite a quandary. The function of schools is to provide education (and to socialise children). That should be the primary focus. Uniforms cut down on the distractions. As does banning advertisements. As does banning vendors and hawkers. As does banning activities which have no educational merit. Out on the street, you are once again on public property, and you can dress as you please.

Uniforms are horrible. I had to tolerate one in secondary school for 6 years.
I had to tolerate dressing in cast offs and being one of the 'poor' group because my parents couldn't afford brand names.

A uniform would have been a blessing.

I suspect our experiences would be painful even if we switched roles. Clothes aren't the answer to the wider problem of classism and cliques. But they sure lessen the strain on poor families.

How are communism, anarchy and drugs hateful? Black power is racist however. I don't think that people should be punished for wearing confederate flags.

Communism is hateful because it promotes equalising those who are inherently unequal, I'm not as smart as Einstein, you're not as smart as me(don't really know, just for arguments sake) and the commies say that we're still all equal and should have equal opportunities, qual opportunities is good, when the people who are given the opportunity are equally qualified, not when the bosses brother gets trhe job because he's the bosses brother(I know this happens in capitalist nations, but it is generally limited to private businesses, not the government, like in communism.) Legalised drugs are not really hateful, but are not approved of by the general populace, much like the battle flag. Anarchy is hateful because it fosters a "might makes right" mentality that is not condusive to peaceful existance, and while not directly hateful, it does allow hate to fester and grow out of control.

Nope.

I can support it because I AM contradictory and have no problems with it:).

Public schools are funded publicly. Schools are NOT, however, public property. Quite a quandary. The function of schools is to provide education (and to socialise children). That should be the primary focus. Uniforms cut down on the distractions. As does banning advertisements. As does banning vendors and hawkers. As does banning activities which have no educational merit. Out on the street, you are once again on public property, and you can dress as you please.

Slightly off topic here but, thats not a very good approach to socialisation, since I bet football and other athletics would be on your list of activities without "educational merit", athletics are a very good way to get experience in a competitive manner and to socialize with others your age.

I had to tolerate dressing in cast offs and being one of the 'poor' group because my parents couldn't afford brand names.

A uniform would have been a blessing.

I suspect our experiences would be painful even if we switched roles. Clothes aren't the answer to the wider problem of classism and cliques. But they sure lessen the strain on poor families.

Can we please stay on topic?

I was just wondering who on here thought that displaying the confederate flag or battle flag automatically made a person a racist and, apparently in some countries, guilty of a hate crime.

It doesn't automatically make them a racist, and it should be protected free speech. However, the Confederate flag is certainly a divisive symbol, if not to divide us by race (as some use it), at least to divide us by region (North vs South). The Civil War was over in 1865, and it's still over now. If people want to display the flag, it's their right to do so, but I wish someday people would get over that war, and save their confederate flags for museums rather than carry it as their banner.

All right cat tribe, the topic at debate is NOT wether or not the civil war was over slavery, the topic is wether or not displaying the confederate flag is a hate crime. Discuss the topic at hand, not the topic you want to discuss.

<sigh>

Several posts -- including this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8730692&postcount=3) to which I was responding in the post you decided to scold me about -- argued that Confederate flags are not racist because the Civil War was not about slavery. This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8730669&postcount=2) is another post before mine saying the war was not about slavery. Here is another post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8730911&postcount=10) making a similar point. Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8731359&postcount=19) is another. And another (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8731668&postcount=27).

Others raised the point. I quite properly responded -- on topic.

Moreover, before I posted a small piece of the evidence against revisionist whitewashing of the Civil War, I posted the following (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8731654&postcount=26):

Although I intend to be concise and respectful, I wish to clarify some things.

I believe the Confederate flag or battle flag is a racist symbol. We had a whole third thread on this subject. I won't rehash it here. I will simply note it arguably original symbolized treason and slavery and then became a primary symbol of segregation and the KKK.

I do not believe displaying the Confederate flag or battle flag "automatically [makes] one a racist." To the contrary, many -- if not most -- do not display those flags with that conscious intent. I think it is insenstive and sometimes a result of ignorance to fly those flags, but not necessarily indicative of racism.

Displaying the Confederate flag or battle flag is definitely not a hate crime in the United States. In fact, a hate crime in the United States is not actually a seperate crime as such but exists when one commits other crimes with a hateful intent against another based on race, religion, gender, etc. It results in an enhanced sentenced if one is convicted of the underlying crime and the hate crime elements are additionally proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have no idea what is and is not allowed at your school or why. If it is as you describe it, it may surprise you that I find that unfair -- although there may be some additional reasons of which I am unaware. If the matter hasn't been litigated already, you might wish to contact the local ACLU.

You might note:

A. I was respectful and directly on topic.

B. On 3 of 4 relevant points I agreed with you -- either partially or in toto.


Again, a particular piece of cloth (or other material) is not racist or hateful because it is inanimate. But the Confederate flag is a racist and hateful symbol.

I'll now catch up on the rest of this thread.

It all depends on where and who you are. In the south the confederate flag is a part of their history and heritage. Under the right circumstances it doesn't stand for anything other than an unashamed pride in one's heritage. In most other circumstances however it is a symbol of racism and opression. That association may not be entirely historically accurate, but it is there, in the minds of both those who object to it and those who embrace it.

What "history and heritage" does it stand for?

Don't get me wrong -- the South need not be ashamed.

But that particular symbol is directly connected to slavery, treasonous rebellion, segregation, lynchings, the KKK, etc.

And, please, don't claim the association of the Confederate flag is "not [] entirely historically accurate." That so association is perfectly accurate.

Very well said, but I'm really curious how you can support, as you yourself stated, such seemingly contradictory sentiments in the same post, if, as you say, it is a free country, then shouldn't we be allowed to wear what we wish in the nations public schools?

I'm not a big supporter of censorship of students.

Students do have slightly diminished rights in the public school setting, however.

First, they are minors.

Second, they are under the in loco parentis control and responsibility of the school officials.

Schools may make rules about issues such as clothing in order to prevent distractions from learning and to maintain public order.

I noted before that I am not keen on the idea of singling out the Confederate flag(s) for a ban. There may be reasons for its ban of which we are unaware.

I can imagine, however, that in an integrated school in Virginia, the Confederate flag is likely to become a point of contention and disruption. It is clear from these forums that some hold very passionate opinions about the flag and such passions can easily lead to violations of rules of decorum.

To topic title...yes

What "history and heritage" does it stand for?

Don't get me wrong -- the South need not be ashamed.

But that particular symbol is directly connected to slavery, treasonous rebellion, segregation, lynchings, the KKK, etc.

And, please, don't claim the association of the Confederate flag is "not [] entirely historically accurate." That so association is perfectly accurate.

In case no one ever told you, men died under that flag, most of whom had nothing to do with slavery. If honoring the memory of fallen soldiers is racist, than I guess I'm as racist as they come.

I'm not a big supporter of censorship of students.

Students do have slightly diminished rights in the public school setting, however.

First, they are minors.

Second, they are under the in loco parentis control and responsibility of the school officials.

Schools may make rules about issues such as clothing in order to prevent distractions from learning and to maintain public order.

I noted before that I am not keen on the idea of singling out the Confederate flag(s) for a ban. There may be reasons for its ban of which we are unaware.

I can imagine, however, that in an integrated school in Virginia, the Confederate flag is likely to become a point of contention and disruption. It is clear from these forums that some hold very passionate opinions about the flag and such passions can easily lead to violations of rules of decorum.

I agree this can be a very contentious issue.

Can we please stay on topic?

I believe that person was, you said, …so I was just wondering who on here thought that displaying the confederate flag or battle flag automatically made a person a racist and, apparently in some countries, guilty of a hate crime. I think it odd that at my school people are allowed to support communism, anarchy, legalised drugs, the "black power" movement(to read as anti-white hate groups in the vein of the black panthers), and various other movements that are considered improper and not PC, but wearing the battle flag is enough to get a person I know suspended for three days for refusing to change his shirt, discussion and well reasoned opinions are welcome, cat-tribe and dobbs town are not.

And the issue of school uniforms came out of that.

... schools are funded publicly. Schools are NOT, however, public property. Quite a quandary. The function of schools is to provide education (and to socialise children). That should be the primary focus. Uniforms cut down on the distractions. As does banning advertisements. As does banning vendors and hawkers. As does banning activities which have no educational merit. Out on the street, you are once again on public property, and you can dress as you please

I have taught for a while in the schools and am amazed at how the kids think they have "constitutional rights" on the property. They don't and agree that schools must do what is necessary to maintain control and if any symbol creates an atmosphere of contension then it must be removed. Having said that...

It doesn't automatically make them a racist, and it should be protected free speech. However, the Confederate flag is certainly a divisive symbol, if not to divide us by race (as some use it), at least to divide us by region (North vs South). The Civil War was over in 1865, and it's still over now. If people want to display the flag, it's their right to do so, but I wish someday people would get over that war, and save their confederate flags for museums rather than carry it as their banner.

...this is an issue of free speech, if the country you live in has similar freedom of speech rights as the US, then you should be able to understand the ability to be able to say what you think and feel, without being thrown into jail for saying it. In Germany isn't illegal to wear a swastika? Should the US do the same? If it did, I don't think it would hold up under scrutiny in a court under the freedom of speech provision in the Constitution.

A point of interest maybe, the swastika is used by the Hindu's, was very popular prior to 1937, both in sports and industry. So it shows what can happen if a symbol is used by a person and government such as that in Nazi Germany.

In case no one ever told you, men died under that flag, most of whom had nothing to do with slavery. If honoring the memory of fallen soldiers is racist, than I guess I'm as racist as they come.

I happen to have ancestors that died fighting under that flag. That does not make the cause for which the flag stood right.

People have died under a lot of flags and other symbols. Some of them were symbols for good causes. Some of them were for bad causes. The senseless deaths sacrificed for a bad cause make that cause all the more unworthy.

Over 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War. Why do you "honor the memory" of those that fought on the wrong side? That fought in defense of slavery and against our Constitution? Why not honor the symbol of the United States -- the ideals which we strive for, however imperfectly, together?

And I did not say that everyone who flies the Confederate flag(s) is racist. To the contrary, I expressly said that was not true. But the Confederate flag's origins are as an unworthy symbol. Although it may be partially redeemed by the honor of some of those who fought under it, it was then stained by about 100 years of segregation.

(Everybody likes to talk about slavery being an old, dead issue. They like to forget the long, more recent legacy of segregation.)

(Everybody likes to talk about slavery being an old, dead issue. They like to forget the long, more recent legacy of segregation.)

Or the current abomination that perpetuates racism in America - affirmative action.

Or the current abomination that perpetuates racism in America - affirmative action.

Feel free to start a thread on that if you like, and I will gladly explain the errors in that thinking.

Given I get angry denounced for posting on the exact topic of this thread, I'm not getting into that now.

But, but let us be clear, affirmative action -- whether right or wrong -- is not an "abomination."

And it is not even remotely comparable to slavery or segregation.

The Confederate battle flag may not in itself promote racism or slavery, I'd never fly one. Though I'm a southerner, I don't like the connatations associated with it, and have found the assumption the someone flying it is a bigotted redneck all to often true.

The Confederate Flag, the symbol is *not* a racist symbol. The South seceeded from the US over the issue of tarrifs, NOT the issue of slavery.

Read about it here (http://www.patriotist.com/miscarch/jm20021104.htm)
Agreed. Megh.

I have taught for a while in the schools and am amazed at how the kids think they have "constitutional rights" on the property. They don't and agree that schools must do what is necessary to maintain control and if any symbol creates an atmosphere of contension then it must be removed. Having said that...
Let me say this, and I am not trying to be rude but am voicing my honest opinion, you suck. If kids do not not have constitutional rights in a public school, then why can't the government deny them elsewhere? It does not say above the Bill of Rights "does not apply in public schools." You are ignorant and smelly.

I find it ironic that burning the U.S. flag is protected as free speech but flying the Confederate battle flag is punished as racist (I come from the South. The Civil War was NOT, I repeat NOT, about slavery. Slavery was merely a convenient issue that Lincoln latched on to to motivate his troops--any historian worth his (her) salt will tell you this.)
I also find it ironic that people are appalled by seeing the Confederate battle flag, but don't even give the Soviet flag a second glance. As great a travesty as slavery was, I leave you to judge the greater crime: slavery in the United States, or the 10 million Ukrainians murdered by Stalin under the banner of Communism. That genocidal feat puts even Hitler to shame!! It's time for a wake-up call: slavery was an unspeakable atrocity; segragation was one of the most repulsive sins against humanity; it's in the past; let's move on and confront the evils we are faced with today.
--spqr

I find it ironic that burning the U.S. flag is protected as free speech but flying the Confederate battle flag is punished as racist

It would be more than ironic -- if that were true. It is not.

Flying the Confederate battle flag is not an crime. It is not something one for which one is punished. It is protected by the First Amendment.

(I come from the South. The Civil War was NOT, I repeat NOT, about slavery. Slavery was merely a convenient issue that Lincoln latched on to to motivate his troops--any historian worth his (her) salt will tell you this.)

Ridiculous.

Most historians don't try to oversimplify history -- unless they truly have an axe to grind. But the consensus is that slavery was the primary issue in the Civil War.

I've posted this before and will continue to do so. Here are the Declarations of Causes of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) of those states that published such causes. Remember, the Southern states seceded and formed the Confederacy between the time Lincoln was elected and his inauguration. They did so because they feared the anti-slavery policies of the new Republican President.

I like the second paragraph of Georgia's statement (emphasis added):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

To say the South did not secede over slavery or that slavery was not the primary issue involved in the Civil War flies in the face of the historical record -- it is unmitigated revisionism. There were other issues. Slavery and preservation of the Union (which was separated by slavery) were the driving issue.


I also find it ironic that people are appalled by seeing the Confederate battle flag, but don't even give the Soviet flag a second glance.

Excuse me?

Which is more popular in the US?

The Confederate battle flag is undeniably more popular than the flag of the former USSR. Any implication otherwise is absurd.


As great a travesty as slavery was, I leave you to judge the greater crime: slavery in the United States, or the 10 million Ukrainians murdered by Stalin under the banner of Communism. That genocidal feat puts even Hitler to shame!!

I don't like playing the "which atrocity is worse" game. Nonetheless:

Slavery.

Because slave traders and owners did not keep good records -- slaves were mere chattel after all -- we do not know for certain how many died from the American practice of slavery.

Reasonable estimates range from 8 million to 40 million. (Some estimate more).

The best estimates appear to be 12 to 15 million died from the American practice of slavery.

Between 7 and 10 million died in the Ukrainian genocidal famine. That was a horrible, horrible atrocity.

But the Holocaust was the Holocaust. Don't play numbers games to diminish it.


It's time for a wake-up call: slavery was an unspeakable atrocity; segragation was one of the most repulsive sins against humanity; it's in the past; let's move on and confront the evils we are faced with today. --spqr

Agreed as to slavery and segregation. Well said.

Of course, legal segregation ended within the lifetime of many Americans and its de facto legacy continues.

What should be left "in the past" is the Confederate flag(s).

I also find it ironic that people are appalled by seeing the Confederate battle flag, but don't even give the Soviet flag a second glance. As great a travesty as slavery was, I leave you to judge the greater crime: slavery in the United States, or the 10 million Ukrainians murdered by Stalin under the banner of Communism. That genocidal feat puts even Hitler to shame!! --spqr

*sigh*
Let's get a few things straight, just whilst we are on the subject of amending historically inaccurate statements.
Stalin may have *claimed* to be a communist. But he wasn't. In oh so many ways. Firstly, under communism (actual communism as a politcal ideal), the freedom of the press is *extremely* important. Secondly, Marx hated what he called the, 'cult of personality'. Stalin had Lenin mummified and kept on display. Marx would have intensely disapproved of Stalinism. But let's be clear. Stalin was a psychotic dictator. Not a communist.

Blessings
Cyber

"Communism is hateful because it promotes equalising those who are inherently unequal, I'm not as smart as Einstein, you're not as smart as me(don't really know, just for arguments sake) and the commies say that we're still all equal and should have equal opportunities, qual opportunities is good, when the people who are given the opportunity are equally qualified, not when the bosses brother gets trhe job because he's the bosses brother(I know this happens in capitalist nations, but it is generally limited to private businesses, not the government, like in communism.) Legalised drugs are not really hateful, but are not approved of by the general populace, much like the battle flag. Anarchy is hateful because it fosters a "might makes right" mentality that is not condusive to peaceful existance, and while not directly hateful, it does allow hate to fester and grow out of control."

Not entirely true.

You cannot determine the hatefulness of a Communist society, because no truly Communist society (as set forth in the Communist Manefesto by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels) has EVER been establish.

Drug use and support can very well be hateful, as drug addiction can cause people to lie, cheat, steal from family and friends, kill family, friends and strangers, and commit all sorts of other crimes. If you are talking about a rapper smoking a doobie not being hateful, try listening to some rap artists. They rap about killing, robbing, gang warfare, illicit sex, etc just as much as they rap about drugs.

Your view of anarchy is COMPLETELY wrong. Anarchy is not about "might makes right." The true theory of anarchy is not applicable to today's society. At it's core, anarchy is a situation in which humans have reached a state of enlightenment at which they can overcome their base nature and no longer have a need for a government (Leviathan). For more information on Leviathan and the base nature of humans, read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbs. In an anarchist system, you do not steal from your neighbor, kill your neighbor, etc etc etc because you would not want your neighbor to do that to you. The basis of anarchy is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This critical point has been forgotten by many neoanarchists, who mostly consist of gutterpunks who think that overthrowing the government is a cool idea.

Back on topic.

The Confederate Battle Flag is not a symbol of racism. The Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of treason and greed. It now has racist connotation due to misperceptions of historical documentation and use by the KKK. Originally, it was about freedom and whatnot, where "freedom" is read as trechery.

However, it is still a right of expression. If you want to fly a Confederate Flag of any sort, or wear a shirt of one, or use one as your bedsheets or toga, then more power to you. As long as you aren't going out and attacking/lynching "colored folk", I don't give two hoots in hell.

Hoot! See, I can barely get out one "hoot."

I have taught for a while in the schools and am amazed at how the kids think they have "constitutional rights" on the property. They don't and agree that schools must do what is necessary to maintain control and if any symbol creates an atmosphere of contension then it must be removed. Having said that...
The Supreme Court ruled in the early '70s that school children did, indeed have freedom of speech rights on school property. I don't recall the name of the case, but it involved students who wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.

I will remind everyone that the discussion that spawned this is still locked pending Moderator review. As the matter stands, several players are facing forumbans already.

If the same brouhaha that happened over there happens over here before the other thread has been reviewed, then those would would have faced forumbans will instead face deletion-without-warning. I did not lock that thread so that you people could go at each others throats in a new thread.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Apparently I missed something while I was out of town. :confused:

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]
To say the South did not secede over slavery or that slavery was not the primary issue involved in the Civil War flies in the face of the historical record -- it is unmitigated revisionism.

I don't think so, Cat-Tribe. Try on the following quotation, which I'm sure you've heard before, as you seem to be (or at least attempt to seem to be) an erudite individual:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
--President Abraham Lincoln

It is also interesting to consider that General Lee considered slavery an abomination, and upon inheriting his mother's slaves, freed them. It was also the consensus among the leaders of the South that they should have freed the slaves and then seceeded from the Union.
I'm not even going to bother to address your other attacks on my argument. They amount to nothing other than so much absurd sophistry.

To say the South did not secede over slavery or that slavery was not the primary issue involved in the Civil War flies in the face of the historical record -- it is unmitigated revisionism.

I don't think so, Cat-Tribe. Try on the following quotation, which I'm sure you've heard before, as you seem to be (or at least attempt to seem to be) an erudite individual:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
--President Abraham Lincoln

The only thing that quote does is refute your argument that Lincoln used slavery to motivate the Union troops.

As I pointed out -- with documentary evidence -- the South seceded to preserve slavery. Secession was an illegal act in violation of the Constitution. The South also attacked the North. Thus, as I said: "To say the South did not secede over slavery or that slavery was not the primary issue involved in the Civil War flies in the face of the historical record -- it is unmitigated revisionism. There were other issues. Slavery and preservation of the Union (which was separated by slavery) were the driving issue[s]."

Further, let us look at that one isolated statement of Lincoln's in context:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

To imply that Lincoln was unconcerned with slavery or that slavery was a primary issue in the Civil War based on that quote is to both misread it and overestimate its importance. As President, Lincoln felt his first duty was to restore the Union. That is not inconsistent with the primary cause of the Civil War being the issue of slavery.

Moreover, Lincoln was not the only politician in the North. Other prominent leaders of the North -- as well as voices such as the press -- unequivocally stated the purpose of the war was to end slavery.

You provide no alternate explanation for the cause of the Civil War. You do not dispute that the South seceded to preserve slavery. You do not dispute that the South fought against the Union to preserve slavery. The policy of the North was to end slavery. Although the paramount interest of the North was to save the Union, it was slavery that had split the Union. The end of the war did bring about the end of slavery.

It is also interesting to consider that General Lee considered slavery an abomination, and upon inheriting his mother's slaves, freed them.

Interesting, yes. Prove anything? No.

At the time of the Civil War, 9 million people lived in the 11 Southern states.

Of these, 3.5 million were slaves.

1 in 4 Southern families owned slaves. Half owned fewer than 4 slaves.

1,800 owned more than 100 slaves and ran plantations.

Though this was a proportionally small fraction of the South's population, its members presided over a great deal of political and economic power. They played a large part in establishing the institution by which one in seven Americans belonged to another American.

It was also the consensus among the leaders of the South that they should have freed the slaves and then seceeded from the Union.

Proof?

When and among whom was this "consensus"?

Curious that this flatly contradicts the Declarations of Secession and the Constitution of the Confederacy.

I'm not even going to bother to address your other attacks on my argument. They amount to nothing other than so much absurd sophistry.

Cute way to avoid admitting you lack answers.

"Communism is hateful because it promotes equalising those who are inherently unequal, I'm not as smart as Einstein, you're not as smart as me(don't really know, just for arguments sake) and the commies say that we're still all equal and should have equal opportunities, qual opportunities is good, when the people who are given the opportunity are equally qualified, not when the bosses brother gets trhe job because he's the bosses brother(I know this happens in capitalist nations, but it is generally limited to private businesses, not the government, like in communism.) Legalised drugs are not really hateful, but are not approved of by the general populace, much like the battle flag. Anarchy is hateful because it fosters a "might makes right" mentality that is not condusive to peaceful existance, and while not directly hateful, it does allow hate to fester and grow out of control."

Not entirely true.

You cannot determine the hatefulness of a Communist society, because no truly Communist society (as set forth in the Communist Manefesto by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels) has EVER been establish.

Drug use and support can very well be hateful, as drug addiction can cause people to lie, cheat, steal from family and friends, kill family, friends and strangers, and commit all sorts of other crimes. If you are talking about a rapper smoking a doobie not being hateful, try listening to some rap artists. They rap about killing, robbing, gang warfare, illicit sex, etc just as much as they rap about drugs.

Your view of anarchy is COMPLETELY wrong. Anarchy is not about "might makes right." The true theory of anarchy is not applicable to today's society. At it's core, anarchy is a situation in which humans have reached a state of enlightenment at which they can overcome their base nature and no longer have a need for a government (Leviathan). For more information on Leviathan and the base nature of humans, read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbs. In an anarchist system, you do not steal from your neighbor, kill your neighbor, etc etc etc because you would not want your neighbor to do that to you. The basis of anarchy is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This critical point has been forgotten by many neoanarchists, who mostly consist of gutterpunks who think that overthrowing the government is a cool idea.

Back on topic.

The Confederate Battle Flag is not a symbol of racism. The Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of treason and greed. It now has racist connotation due to misperceptions of historical documentation and use by the KKK. Originally, it was about freedom and whatnot, where "freedom" is read as trechery.

However, it is still a right of expression. If you want to fly a Confederate Flag of any sort, or wear a shirt of one, or use one as your bedsheets or toga, then more power to you. As long as you aren't going out and attacking/lynching "colored folk", I don't give two hoots in hell.

Hoot! See, I can barely get out one "hoot."

All right slightly off topic but I feel it necessary, my point about anarchy was the version that is in common understanding, where you do whatever the hell you want and damn the consequences, not true anarchy, most so-called "anarchists" do not understand their own "ideals" except in the form of getting rid of the government. Most anarchists today are men between the ages of 16 and 30 who are white, usually middle class, and just looking for a "cause" to get them some attention, the rest are even more dangerous, because they are still 16-30 year old, middlde class white men, but they're now acting or actively planning out the violent overthrow of the government, while they are a very small minority, they are more dangerous and more often seen than the majority of "anarchists".

The only thing that quote does is refute your argument that Lincoln used slavery to motivate the Union troops.

As I pointed out -- with documentary evidence -- the South seceded to preserve slavery. Secession was an illegal act in violation of the Constitution. The South also attacked the North. Thus, as I said: "To say the South did not secede over slavery or that slavery was not the primary issue involved in the Civil War flies in the face of the historical record -- it is unmitigated revisionism. There were other issues. Slavery and preservation of the Union (which was separated by slavery) were the driving issue[s]."

Further, let us look at that one isolated statement of Lincoln's in context:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

To imply that Lincoln was unconcerned with slavery or that slavery was a primary issue in the Civil War based on that quote is to both misread it and overestimate its importance. As President, Lincoln felt his first duty was to restore the Union. That is not inconsistent with the primary cause of the Civil War being the issue of slavery.

Moreover, Lincoln was not the only politician in the North. Other prominent leaders of the North -- as well as voices such as the press -- unequivocally stated the purpose of the war was to end slavery.

You provide no alternate explanation for the cause of the Civil War. You do not dispute that the South seceded to preserve slavery. You do not dispute that the South fought against the Union to preserve slavery. The policy of the North was to end slavery. Although the paramount interest of the North was to save the Union, it was slavery that had split the Union. The end of the war did bring about the end of slavery.



Interesting, yes. Prove anything? No.

At the time of the Civil War, 9 million people lived in the 11 Southern states.

Of these, 3.5 million were slaves.

1 in 4 Southern families owned slaves. Half owned fewer than 4 slaves.

1,800 owned more than 100 slaves and ran plantations.

Though this was a proportionally small fraction of the South's population, its members presided over a great deal of political and economic power. They played a large part in establishing the institution by which one in seven Americans belonged to another American.



Proof?

When and among whom was this "consensus"?

Curious that this flatly contradicts the Declarations of Secession and the Constitution of the Confederacy.



Cute way to avoid admitting you lack answers.

Stay on the goddammed topic, it is not the civil war, I did that already, the topic is wether or not the battle flag is a hate crime.

<sigh>

Several posts -- including this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8730692&postcount=3) to which I was responding in the post you decided to scold me about -- argued that Confederate flags are not racist because the Civil War was not about slavery. This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8730669&postcount=2) is another post before mine saying the war was not about slavery. Here is another post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8730911&postcount=10) making a similar point. Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8731359&postcount=19) is another. And another (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8731668&postcount=27).

Others raised the point. I quite properly responded -- on topic.

Moreover, before I posted a small piece of the evidence against revisionist whitewashing of the Civil War, I posted the following (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8731654&postcount=26):



You might note:

A. I was respectful and directly on topic.

B. On 3 of 4 relevant points I agreed with you -- either partially or in toto.


Again, a particular piece of cloth (or other material) is not racist or hateful because it is inanimate. But the Confederate flag is a racist and hateful symbol.

I'll now catch up on the rest of this thread.

I do not considr the rehashing of the civil wars justification on topic, you were just the first one I noticed doing it, I'd have said the same to anybody else, you notice I've tried to avoid the topic of wteher or not the civil war was or was not about such and such. As for you agreement it was noted, and appreciated, however the rest of the post was what I considered outside the bounds of this topic, if you like I can bitch out everybody else while I'm at it.

What "history and heritage" does it stand for?

Don't get me wrong -- the South need not be ashamed.

But that particular symbol is directly connected to slavery, treasonous rebellion, segregation, lynchings, the KKK, etc.

And, please, don't claim the association of the Confederate flag is "not [] entirely historically accurate." That so association is perfectly accurate.

0 for 5 cat tribe, the rebellion was not treasonous, it was a rebellion, not slavery, KKK had a different flag, and segregation and lynchings all fall under the KKK.

The confederate flag itself is not a racist symbol. But it does represent the confederacy, obviously. One of who's main instiutions was slavery. And most of the support of slavery came from the lowest class of white's who did not even own slaves. They supported slavery because they wanted to feel better abotu themselves by having someone lower then them. I believe that that is racism in more forms that one. The flag itself isn't a racist symbol, but when someone displays the flag they are implying about themselves that they support the confederacy, and therefore support slavery and racism. So vicariously the flag is taken as a racist symbol, but it isn't one to begin with.

ahem, i appear to be a bit late on this discussion. but going back to what tha first person said--i'd like to clarify that tha Black Panther Party was not a "racist" or "anti-white" organization. read up on Fred Hampton (chairman of tha Chicago chapter, he was murdered by tha US government)--he promoted black power for black people, white power for white people, red power for red people, yellow power for yellow people, brown power for brown people, so on and so forth. it was all about power to all tha people. just because a big part of tha BPP was mainly about getting tha black people some power that they didn't have, doesn't mean that they were intolerant of other races. in fact, Fred Hampton worked to found tha Rainbow Coalition, which would have been a unification of all tha ethnic groups and gangs in Chicago. furthermore, Fred Hampton and tha BPP gave free breakfast to children!!! and COINTELPRO killed him in cold blood! this whole post has nothing to do with tha Confederate flag...

The confederate flag itself is not a racist symbol. But it does represent the confederacy, obviously. One of who's main instiutions was slavery. And most of the support of slavery came from the lowest class of white's who did not even own slaves. They supported slavery because they wanted to feel better abotu themselves by having someone lower then them. I believe that that is racism in more forms that one. The flag itself isn't a racist symbol, but when someone displays the flag they are implying about themselves that they support the confederacy, and therefore support slavery and racism. So vicariously the flag is taken as a racist symbol, but it isn't one to begin with.
Any flag that stands for a country stands for that country’s ideals. The ideals of the Confederacy were about freedom from tyranny. The confederate flag represents a stand against tyranny. The South never "stood" for racism. So the flag does not stand for racism.

I've been called racist just because I'm white.

:rolleyes:

the other night at work some black guy skipped in line at the checkout, and i politely informed him of the location of the end of the line, and he called me racist because i am white and i told him to go to the end of the line.

poor sap. i would have said the same thing to a honkey.

anyway, Miehm, i see what you mean when you said "anarchist," but that isn't a correct term for it. a more accurate term would be "misguided morons."

as for the confedertate battle flag, i have seen too many klansmen raise that as their standard to pretend that it has no racist connotations. whether or not it was originally a racist symbol is irrelevant. the face of the matter is that it is currently a racist symbol to a vast majority of people.

I know what the confederate flag is, but what is the "battle flag"? I have never come accross this term before. Whose flag is it? What does it stand for? What does it look like?

ahem, i appear to be a bit late on this discussion. but going back to what tha first person said--i'd like to clarify that tha Black Panther Party was not a "racist" or "anti-white" organization. read up on Fred Hampton (chairman of tha Chicago chapter, he was murdered by tha US government)--he promoted black power for black people, white power for white people, red power for red people, yellow power for yellow people, brown power for brown people, so on and so forth. it was all about power to all tha people. just because a big part of tha BPP was mainly about getting tha black people some power that they didn't have, doesn't mean that they were intolerant of other races. in fact, Fred Hampton worked to found tha Rainbow Coalition, which would have been a unification of all tha ethnic groups and gangs in Chicago. furthermore, Fred Hampton and tha BPP gave free breakfast to children!!! and COINTELPRO killed him in cold blood! this whole post has nothing to do with tha Confederate flag...

WOW, you frighten me, alot... The black panthers, the gang, not the political party, were quite racist, they are known to have murdered at lleast one white woman who asked too many questions when she was doing their accounting, black panthers were racist, the chicago chapter may have been nice, but they're the exception, not the rule.

I know what the confederate flag is, but what is the "battle flag"? I have never come accross this term before. Whose flag is it? What does it stand for? What does it look like?

The confederate flag you know is most likely the battle flag, not the national flag. The battle flag is the diagonals with the stars in them, the national flag is this one: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Flags/flag%5b1%5d_small.jpg the battle flag is this one: http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/battlefl.jpg , see the difference?

the other night at work some black guy skipped in line at the checkout, and i politely informed him of the location of the end of the line, and he called me racist because i am white and i told him to go to the end of the line.

poor sap. i would have said the same thing to a honkey.

anyway, Miehm, i see what you mean when you said "anarchist," but that isn't a correct term for it. a more accurate term would be "misguided morons."

as for the confedertate battle flag, i have seen too many klansmen raise that as their standard to pretend that it has no racist connotations. whether or not it was originally a racist symbol is irrelevant. the face of the matter is that it is currently a racist symbol to a vast majority of people.

Sorry man the KKK does not use the Battle Flag, they use the Klan flag as I like to call it, which bears more resemblance to the navy jack than the infantry and cavaly battle flag.

Twodayoldburrito']"Showing the confederate flag is just another symbol that promotes slavery"

I live in texas, and basically every other person has a bumper sticker, poster, decal, or even an acctual replication of the confederate flag. Even though some people have it to represent the flag, i agree that it is a symbol that promotes slavery... not to mention a very high majority of people who own the flag are racist themselves

Really?Where at?I'm in Texas,too, and I seldom see them.

My problem with the Confederate Flag is that I view it as a representation of treason (the South seceeding from the North).

Really?Where at?I'm in Texas,too, and I seldom see them.

My problem with the Confederate Flag is that I view it as a representation of treason (the South seceeding from the North).

Hey, there wasn't any treason, they were misguided in their reasons, but sound in their goals(preservation of slavery was not a goal, whatever the school teacher tells you) secession was their goal, furthermore the Union recognised the confederacy as a seperate nation by enforcing a military bliockade(military technicality that gave the confederacy nation status) on their ports, a seperate nation cannot be guilty of treason.

Stay on the goddammed topic, it is not the civil war, I did that already, the topic is wether or not the battle flag is a hate crime.

The battle flag is an inherently racist and hateful symbol.

Flying or wearing it is not a hate crime.

(Ironically, it used to be considered flag desecration to wear a representation of a flag except as part of a uniform. Apparently you do not believe this applies to a Confederate flag t-shirt.)

Again, I directly responded to someone who was making an argument that was directed at me.

Given that the topic as described in your poll question is whether the flag is racist, you cannot really maintain discussion of whether its origins are racist to be off-topic.

That you continue to chide me for discussing the Civil War, but not those who support your point of view only exposes your hypocrisy.

I do not considr the rehashing of the civil wars justification on topic, you were just the first one I noticed doing it, I'd have said the same to anybody else, you notice I've tried to avoid the topic of wteher or not the civil war was or was not about such and such. As for you agreement it was noted, and appreciated, however the rest of the post was what I considered outside the bounds of this topic, if you like I can bitch out everybody else while I'm at it.

Meh.

Flimsy dissembling.

As I pointed out, there were numerous posts about the Civil War before mine. You chose me to chide -- even though I directly responding to someone else -- because you do not like how easily I disprove your viewpoint.

So far you have chided only me for posting on that clear colollary to whether the Confederate flag is racist.

Your hypocrisy is showing.

And your definition of "the topic" is absurd. If you wish a discussion on whether the Confederate flags are racist, you must expect someone to point out that they have racist origins.

Unless you just didn't want to hear that point of view .......

WOW, you frighten me, alot... The black panthers, the gang, not the political party, were quite racist, they are known to have murdered at lleast one white woman who asked too many questions when she was doing their accounting, black panthers were racist, the chicago chapter may have been nice, but they're the exception, not the rule.

check out tha Wikipedia article on tha Black Panthers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panthers

if there were any breakaway groups that were racist, it was probably because of tha FBI's interaction. tha BPP was not racist, and if there was a racist gang that called themselves tha Black Panthers, then they weren't tha BPP.

0 for 5 cat tribe, the rebellion was not treasonous, it was a rebellion, not slavery, KKK had a different flag, and segregation and lynchings all fall under the KKK.

Truly sad.

I've already document the South seceded to preserve slavery -- in the official words of the Confederate states themselves.

Laying war against the United States is treason.

When you say the "KKK had a different flag" you are, for those that do not know, relying on your silly distinction based on the exact dimensions of the flag. Sorry, but that won't fly.

More importantly, segregation was not simply the KKK. It was the legal policy throughout the South.

That you would seek to whitewash the history of the Confederate flags on such flimsy excuses and distinctions only illustrates the desperation of your "cause."

Any flag that stands for a country stands for that country’s ideals. The ideals of the Confederacy were about freedom from tyranny. The confederate flag represents a stand against tyranny. The South never "stood" for racism. So the flag does not stand for racism.

Pray tell, what "tryranny" did the Confederacy stand against?

In the words of the seceding states themselves, the primary reasons they were seceding was to preserve slavery. Slavery is a tad ugly. So the flag that stood for slavery is a bit tarnished from the git-go.

Treason is a great ideal as well. Nothing like laying war against the Republic because you lost an election.

Then, there is segregation, lynchings, and the KKK. If the Confederate flag(s) did not start out as racist symbols, they were so used for a 100 years or so.

Yep. I'd say they were racist symbols.

WOW, you frighten me, alot... The black panthers, the gang, not the political party, were quite racist, they are known to have murdered at lleast one white woman who asked too many questions when she was doing their accounting, black panthers were racist, the chicago chapter may have been nice, but they're the exception, not the rule.

Cute.

Untrue. Pathetic. But cute in an ugly kind of way.

But from one that thinks the NAACP is racist, I'm not suprised to hear the Black Panthers are racist as well.

Sorry man the KKK does not use the Battle Flag, they use the Klan flag as I like to call it, which bears more resemblance to the navy jack than the infantry and cavaly battle flag.

For those that haven't heard your theory about the exact dimensions of the Battle Flag as being of primary importance, perhaps you'd like to explain.

Better yet. Explain this to the KKK.

"The flag that was the symbol of slavery on the high seas for a long time was not the Confederate battle flag, it was sadly the Stars and Stripes"
-Alan Keyes

Hey, there wasn't any treason, they were misguided in their reasons, but sound in their goals(preservation of slavery was not a goal, whatever the school teacher tells you) secession was their goal, furthermore the Union recognised the confederacy as a seperate nation by enforcing a military bliockade(military technicality that gave the confederacy nation status) on their ports, a seperate nation cannot be guilty of treason.


Gee. I thought commenting on the causes of the War was off-topic?

Nonetheless,

1. Secession was illegal and treason. Laying war against the Union was treason.

2. Preservation of slavery was the goal. The Confederate states said so themselves -- officially. Simply repeating over and over that it wasn't doesn't change history.

3. They were a bit more than misguided. Slavery was evil. Laying war against the Constitution was a tad wrong.

4. Your "blockade" theory is silly semantics.

0 for 5 cat tribe, the rebellion was not treasonous, it was a rebellion, not slavery, KKK had a different flag, and segregation and lynchings all fall under the KKK.

yeah. maybe you can argue about lynchings falling under tha KKK, but segregation? dude, segregation was actual law for years and years and years. and tha craziest thing was tha bullshit excuses that politicians used for wanting ta keep segregation--saying like they don't wanna change 'cause people are used ta blacks being treated badly. damn i hate politicians.

If you honestly don't think that the KKK uses the Confederate Battle Flag, then perhaps you should go and talk to the Grand Wizard of the chapter that my stepfather belongs to. He flies it over his house, sings Dixie to it with his hand over his heart, and swears that it symbolizes the "grand ideal" that the KKK stands for. At the joint chapter rallies that my stepfather attended, nearly every chapter in the state of Virginia had Confederate Battle Flags flying high, battle flag bumper stickers, etc etc etc. If you honestly think that the KKK doesn't use it, then you have NEVER seen a single KKK member in your life.