489 réponses à ce sujet

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

I still don't understand why people wave that flag proudly, is celebrating traitor's who left the US mostly thx to them wanting to keep the slave trade going

[Han Shot First]

This hysteria over the flag is your typical knee-jerk reaction that comes after any of these incidents. This time there was a clear racial angle so people are going for the flag more than the gun issue, and since most of the country outside of the South has no attachment towards the flag it's an easy target.

 

Seriously, it takes some major hubris for people in other parts of the country to demand that Southern states change their symbols and hide their history. The media is overplaying its hand on this and trying to force change is only going to cause more resentment. By some accounts I read this Roof guy was first radicalized by the media spectacle around Trayvon Martin, so another media spectacle is sure to solve all racism and not make any more monsters.

 

The flag means different things to different people. As somebody currently living in LA I  can tell you that for a lot of people that flag is simply about "Rebel Pride", Dukes of Hazzard, and Southern identity. And the thing is it's not stopping at the flag. I've already seen things about a statue vandalized, people calling for monuments to be destroyed, street names to change, etc. Anyway, it's up to the states to change it.

 

The corporate banning of the flag is their right, but I think it's a dumb overreaction and misdirection to score some easy PR. Banning the flag in a historical context, however, is especially idiotic.

 

You're right in that most people who fly the flag aren't racists, and instead they it associate with pride in southern culture. That in no way changes the history of what it originally represented however. Sadly, some of the people who fly the flag are also ignorant of that history. 

[Jaison1986]

I don't see how an flag is relevant. Should we also ban the vatican flag as well from the world considering the monstrous crimes commited by christians during medieval times in europe? It's the past. This is just an exagerated reaction from hyperly sensitive people. Apple should know better.

[Jehuty]

If you are more offended about a flag over a shooting, then something is wrong with you. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

The flag means different things to different people. As somebody currently living in LA I  can tell you that for a lot of people that flag is simply about "Rebel Pride", Dukes of Hazzard, and Southern identity.

 

Acknowledged. Based on my observation the flag is mostly used for these reasons.

[Han Shot First]

I don't see how an flag is relevant. Should we also ban the vatican flag as well from the world considering the monstrous crimes commited by christians during medieval times in europe? It's the past. This is just an exagerated reaction from hyperly sensitive people. Apple should know better.

 

Racism exists to varying degrees in every nation in the world, and no country can claim a spotless human rights record. The Confederacy however was specifically founded on a doctrine of white supremacy.

 

That makes it rather unique. The closest comparison would be Nazi Germany.

[o Ventus]

I disagree. Millions of people have died to combat the ideologies those flags (Nazi and Confederate) represent. Ban them. Jail everyone who uses them.

 

The Confederacy and the Nazis are so radically different from one another, I cannot comprehend how you managed to make thet comparison and not have your head spontaneously explode from the sheer levels of wtf. Nazi Germany made it a point to purge certain ethnic groups based solely because of their ethnicities. The Confederacy.... Didn't. Nor did they do anything even remotely on that level. The worst thing they did was secede from the rest of the United States and have their flag be taken over by backwoods inbred rednecks.

 

And I say this as someone who detests the South.

[Jehuty]

I still don't understand why people wave that flag proudly, is celebrating traitor's who left the US mostly thx to them wanting to keep the slave trade going

Don't kid yourself, the North had slaves as well. 

[o Ventus]

Racism exists to varying degrees in every nation in the world, and no country can claim a spotless human rights record. The Confederacy however is unique in that it was specifically founded on a doctrine of white supremacy.

 

That makes it rather unique. The closest comparison would be Nazi Germany.

wut

[BroBear Berbil]

I still don't understand why people wave that flag proudly, is celebrating traitor's who left the US mostly thx to them wanting to keep the slave trade going

 

A large part of the pride comes from the fact that the Confederate Army put up a pretty good fight considering their numerical disadvantage, fewer resources, and the lack of an industrial economy backing it up.

 

Also let's not pretend like the North was full of saints and that everybody was an abolitionist. The slave trade was already ended; slavery still existed and was important to the South because their economy depended on it. It wasn't some abitrary system that was implemented for no reason. Yeah, it was a horrible system but it was obviously going to be a painful thing to get rid of for the South; its effects are still felt today. Prior to the North's industrialization they relied heavily on Southern exports as well. The South was a poor agrarian economy in the 19th century and in many ways it still is.

[Jehuty]

I'm just gonna leave this here. Should research to confirm. 

Like I said, I should research this to confirm. So don't jump on me if any of it is wrong. 

[Han Shot First]

Don't kid yourself, the North had slaves as well. 

 

Not many by the start of the American Civil War.

 

By 1840, twenty years before the start of the American Civil War, there were less than 4,000 slaves in all of the north. At the start of the Civil War nearly all the northern states had passed laws either outlawing slavery or limiting it. It had nearly disappeared by the time the first shots were fired at Ft. Sumter, with New Jersey and Delaware being the only states where it was still legal. In 1860 New Jersey listed 18 slaves in the entire state and Delaware a little over 1,800. For comparison in 1860 there were 462,000 slaves in Georgia, 436,000 in Mississippi, 402,000 in South Carolina, and 490,000 in Virginia.

 

In any case that slavery was still barely holding in a couple of northern states doesn't in any way change that slavery was the cause of the American Civil War. The leaders of the Confederacy declared to the world their reasons for secession, both in their state's secession conventions, and in the declarations of secession they drafted. The chief cause of complaint, and repeated over and over again, was the issue of slavery. Google 'declarations of secession' and have a read. This is the sort of thing you'll find:

 

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.

 

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

BTW How many Native Tribes are destroyed by USA? How many millions natives had been killed till 1880?

[X Equestris]

Don't kid yourself, the North had slaves as well.

There were slaves in Northern states, yes, but most of those were in the border states that just barely remained in the Union. Some of those states, like Kentucky and Maryland, are mostly considered Southern in character.

[Jehuty]

You're right, you should do more research if you think they're remotely comparable.

 

One of the main sources of tension that led to the eventual secession was the politics behind deciding whether newly added border states would legally allow slavery or not, thus changing the dynamic of pro- vs anti-slavery sentiments in the legislature.

Well, the North didn't have as many slaves as the South did but regardless, slavery had been going on beforehand. 

[Han Shot First]

wut

 

Its called history, sport. Drop the snark and learn some.

 

It doesn't get anymore clear than, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the position of African slavery."

 

A few other examples from the Confederate declarations of Secession:

 

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

 

Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession

 

 

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

 

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

 

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

 

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

 

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

 

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

 

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of ****** slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the ****** races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a ****** slave remains in these States.

 

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

 

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

 

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

 

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

 

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

 

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

 

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

 

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

 

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

 

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

 

A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.

[In Exile]

By this logic you need to condemn the United States and ban our flag as well considering the original colonists committed mass genocide on the native Americans who we stole this country from. The irony whenever Americans talk about situations like this is incredible.

One, I'm not American. Two, it absolutely is genocide. Three, whether or not that translates into the flag being a racist symbol depends on a lot on the history of the country. When it exists for a few years and was founded solely for the purpose of furthering racism and slavery, you're in a whole other moral universe.

[Jaison1986]

One, I'm not American. Two, it absolutely is genocide. Three, whether or not that translates into the flag being a racist symbol depends on a lot on the history of the country. When it exists for a few years and was founded solely for the purpose of furthering racism and slavery, you're in a whole other moral universe.

 

More importantly, why do you even care if you're not american?

[Han Shot First]

I'm just gonna leave this here. Should research to confirm. 

 

 

*snip*

 

Like I said, I should research this to confirm. So don't jump on me if any of it is wrong. 

 

I explained the difference in an earlier post. The United States wasn't founded on a bedrock of white supremacy, whereas the Confederacy was. The Confederacy was being deliberately engineered as a state where there would be one race of masters and one race of slaves, for all time. The Confederacy wasn't unique in that many of its citizens were racists. Racism existed in the Union too. In fact a great number of people in the north didn't care much about the slaves at all, and were instead fighting to preserve the Union. Where the Confederacy was unique is that it was a nation founded on a racist political ideology.

 

Many nations had slavery at one point or another, including the United States and many of the countries in Europe. Few however were actually founded as nations specifically to preserve race-based slavery. The Confederacy was.

[X Equestris]

BTW How many Native Tribes are destroyed by USA? How many millions natives had been killed till 1880?

Casualties were a lot lower than you'd think. That's mostly because of the diseases like small pox that decimated Native populations. Something like 90%(the highest estimate) of the Americas' natives were wiped out by disease. There's also the fact that the government was more concerned with relocating those tribes than outright destroying them.

Taken from the Wikipedia article on native populations:

From the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1894): "The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians. The actual number of killed and wounded Indians must be very much higher than the given... Fifty percent additional would be a safe estimate..."[33]

[In Exile]

Maybe from a legal perspective, but that doesn't make it any less censorship. The actually deifnition of the word applies to what Apple is doing - intentionally blocking a certain type of content across the board, regardless of its context. That's censorship - plain and simple.

It can't. There are two important differences. The first is that Apple doesn't control the whole forum for discussion. It's possible to disseminate your product elsewhere. Two - even if Apple did hold that monopoly - it can't be said to owe a duty to anyone anyone to provide access to that forum.

The government is different. And if you do think that Apple does owe a duty not to keep that kind of information out of public consumption, then you're essentially asking for the gov't to come in and regulate speech.

[o Ventus]

 

Its called history, sport. Drop the snark and learn some.

 

It doesn't get anymore clear than, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the position of African slavery."

 

A few other examples from the Confederate declarations of Secession:

Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession

 

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

 

A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.

 

History was actually one of my stronger subjects throughout my years in school, thanks for reminding me. Also, I think it's stupendously ironic that you say "drop the snark", right after calling me "sport" and saying "it's called history, go learn some". It's almost like you have no sense of self awareness.

 

Did you read those same excerpts of text that you copy/pasted, or did you just copy/paste them thinking they would make your point for you? Of the 3, only the Texas secession letter could justifiably be called "white supremacist" or racist. The first is a lament that the federal government is limiting and making efforts to remove their right to own slaves (which itself is not a racist idea, however sh***y it is). The second is a more general complaint about the federal government being too involved with things in the states as a whole, not just slavery. Neither of those are in any way racist or white supremacist.

 

... Unless you're suggesting that the reason black people were used as slaves was because of racism (which I'm assuming is the case, since that seems to be the most popular statement I've seen). The problem with that is that it isn't even related to the Confederacy anymore when you go down that road, considering the history of slavery in the United States (and the colonies before they were united).

 

Unrelated, but why does nobody ever talk about the Egyptians or Romans when discussing slaves? It's always about the United States and the Confederacy. The Confederacy was a joke of a government not even recognized by the rest of the United States and lasted all of 4 years, whereas Egypt and Rome (both the Roman Republic and the Empire) were practically built by slaves, lasted absurdly long, and controlled massive portions of the continents they stemmed from (and in both of these particular empires, massive portions of other continents). And since people have mentioned the Nazis, what about the slave labor they left to the people detained in labor camps, or the forced labor of the "enemies of the state" in Soviet labor camps and gulags? Compared to these other countries, slavery in the United States was a drop in the puddle. That isn't to justify it though, slavery of any kind is still an abhorrent crime and should be snuffed out immediately when it's seen, but I find it rather amusing that these massive former world powers whose very base was slave labor are more or less ignored when the subject is brought up. Or the fact that the source of slaves for the United States was originally prisoners of war and poor people who were already slaves to African kings and warlords. It's not like the United States woke up and said to itself "you know what? I'm going to go and kidnap some black people and force them to work the fields".

[In Exile]

You're right in that most people who fly the flag aren't racists, and instead they it associate with pride in southern culture. That in no way changes the history of what it originally represented however. Sadly, some of the people who fly the flag are also ignorant of that history.

That's nonsense. It would be like using the Nazi flag to celebrate "German Pride". To pick a symbol so strongly associated with hate - and to continue to use it - absolutely opens you to condemnation. It's no defence to say that proudly displaying that offence racist symbol doesn't make you a racist because you're displaying it for another reason.

This isn't targeted at you so much as this view that there's some cultural merit to waiving this symbol of racism around. Rallying around it doesn't make it better - it makes the people who do it twits for picking a symbol of racism to represent their cultrue.

[Lunch Box1912]

Do your research before reacting.

 

The battle flag was flown alongside the Confederate Armies flag to distinguish between their flag and the US's flag as their flag closely resembled it. It is flown today as a reminder of what this country has been through, moved on from and as a symbol of a states sovereignty (under the ever increasing burden of an over sized federal government.) It's not the official flag of the Confederate States... This is

 

 

There where three different versions of this flag. Because some retard doesn't know their history and decides a battle flag means something it doesn't we have to conform to their non-valid interpretation. No I'm sorry lets get real here people. The world is full of crazy people, your never going to change this. The guy wore levi jeans; should we stop wearing denim jeans? they must be racist!? give me a break. The guy was a whack job end of story.