Attack on the Confederate Flag?
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Both..commercial censorship and national hysteria. I can see taking down a Nazi Swastika, illegalizing a burning cross, etc. But the SOUTH as so much more than just a place that embraced slavery. Heck..at my nephew's Coast Guard base, they take down all forms and symbols of CHRISTIANITY in and around the chapel during graduation as to NOT OFFEND those who are NOT Christian. Imagine that! Yet..in modern day Salem, Massachusettes, triads are allowed anytime. In a local CHRISTIAN school, any design, T-shirt, bookcover, or anything with a skull on it is considered taboo and not allowed on the premises. Where does this stop? Any symbol, anywhere in any time frame will offend somebody. The American flag, in lots of places than we want to admit, does OFFEND...does that mean it needs to be taken down eternally?
According to these women it is not desirable to be white. Both of them denied they were white.
Actually, there are many people of native American ancestry in politics. There is also the fact that many native americans don't like our politics and choose not to be involved in it. Many keep to themselves and take care of their own out of choice. Not by force.
My great grandmother was Cherokee. It is taking everything in me not to scream GIVE ME BACK MY LAND!
Actually, there are many people of native American ancestry in politics. There is also the fact that many native americans don't like our politics and choose not to be involved in it. Many keep to themselves and take care of their own out of choice. Not by force.
My great grandmother was Cherokee. It is taking everything in me not to scream GIVE ME BACK MY LAND!
P
I know you must be joking. My mother is Scottish and my father Native American. When they married in the 1950's it was considered a disgrace. I was considered a disgrace-half breed. It wasn't easy.
We got free fishing and in todays politically correct world, I guess the casinos would be considered reparation.
We got free fishing and in todays politically correct world, I guess the casinos would be considered reparation.
A
I am not a southerner and have no identity issues associated with the confederate flag. However, in the era I grew up that flag was associated with personal liberty, independence, and resistance to government totalitarianism. Those were the reasons it was a standard motif on so much merchandise all over the country from t-shirts to bumper stickers. It was not, to the vast majority of Americans, a representation of racism. Nor was it for most southerners I spoke with who told me it was really a symbol they associated with their sense of southern identity sans-racism.
I think it's the left becoming ever more radical and hysterical as they push for more and more government totalitarianism. It will only end when the oppression becomes so burdensome and persecutory, even to those on the left, that a movement grows large enough to throw off the yoke. I hope that happens before the left turns the Bill of Rights into a roll of toilet paper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/b...nfederate-flag-merchandise.html?emc=eta1&_r=1
I think it's the left becoming ever more radical and hysterical as they push for more and more government totalitarianism. It will only end when the oppression becomes so burdensome and persecutory, even to those on the left, that a movement grows large enough to throw off the yoke. I hope that happens before the left turns the Bill of Rights into a roll of toilet paper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/b...nfederate-flag-merchandise.html?emc=eta1&_r=1
J
here are some facts about the civil war, much was not taught in history class but more and more are becoming aware today. much of this i have read but most i learned from 2nd hand accounts, old men that were eye witnesses to what really happened in those days.
1) - slavery was not an issue, it was part of it but not why the war was fought. the majority of southerners did not even own slaves. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. do you really think the average farmer or poor working man is going to go to war, risk his life, make his wife a widow and kids fatherless just so a rich plantation owner can keep his right to have slaves?
2) the south was being bled dry by economic restrictions from the union., and they felt like they were losing their rights and freedoms as the federal government was oppressing their state rights. this was the big deal that pushed the south over the edge.
3) this is just a personal observation. i think there was a predetermined looting of the south. you can find this tactic over and over in history. one greedy country wants to plunder another, they push that country till they push back, then they have precedence to declare war. read the history of the Roman empire. it was no coincidence that every single thing of economic value in the south was taken over by tycoons from the north.
there is a reason why so many refer to it as the war of northern aggression
1) - slavery was not an issue, it was part of it but not why the war was fought. the majority of southerners did not even own slaves. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. do you really think the average farmer or poor working man is going to go to war, risk his life, make his wife a widow and kids fatherless just so a rich plantation owner can keep his right to have slaves?
2) the south was being bled dry by economic restrictions from the union., and they felt like they were losing their rights and freedoms as the federal government was oppressing their state rights. this was the big deal that pushed the south over the edge.
3) this is just a personal observation. i think there was a predetermined looting of the south. you can find this tactic over and over in history. one greedy country wants to plunder another, they push that country till they push back, then they have precedence to declare war. read the history of the Roman empire. it was no coincidence that every single thing of economic value in the south was taken over by tycoons from the north.
there is a reason why so many refer to it as the war of northern aggression
A
It's true that few southerners owned slaves jaybird88 and that the Civil War was fought over a wide range of issues (e.g. the difference in southern and northern social cultures and political beliefs, taxes, tariffs, internal improvements, as well as states rights versus federal rights); however, the future of slavery WAS the burning issue and catalyst for it.
V
That's what the victors wrote in the history books. It is largely a lie. Slavery was already dying out. The South was industrializing, and doing it better and cheaper than the North. That frightened the entrenched elite in the northeast manufacturing enclaves. The recasting of Southerners as barbaric inhumane slave-holders was necessary not just to make war more palatable, but to stir up the average Northern to support an effort he would not support if the facts were known. The propaganda worked.
As I stated earlier, there were more abolitionist organizations in the South than there ever were in the North. The North was treating the South as an agricultural colony, and like England did to its American colonies, taxed them almost into bankruptcy for shipping goods that didn't ever leave the country, but simply went north.
Another thing I've learned recently is that the Northeast, where the industrialists that wanted to destroy the South had their factories and families, was largely against the original Revolution, being a hotbed of Tories and spies. Two generations later, the children of those traitors were plotting to undermine the limited-government constitutional guidelines and establish a more centralized, authoritarian government.
Their first real victory in that area was getting James Buchanan elected president after Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce managed to steer the country to at least a stalemate over Southern industrialization and westward expansion -- issues the North vehemently opposed.
The irony is that history will tell you that Fillmore was a "do-nothing" and Pierce a divider. The reality is that both saw the benefits of letting the South alone to modernize and expand economically to whatever extent businessmen and bankers wanted to invest in the efforts, benefits that would eventually make the whole country better, more prosperous, and put a natural, peaceful end to slavery.
The Northern industrialists hidden agendas of centralized authoritarian government and concentration of wealth in the pockets of those few individuals demanded they undermine those efforts and destroy the South. With Buchanan and Lincoln, they achieved their goals. Today's liberals are the direct descendants of those anti-American activists, having traded economics for politics as their chief tool to achieve their ends.
The U.S. would not be the U.S. today if the South had won, but the CSA would be the stronger, freer nation in which to live. I believe the two nations would have been at each others' throats all this time, and whatever the North became would be Marxist in socioeconomic philosophy.
As I stated earlier, there were more abolitionist organizations in the South than there ever were in the North. The North was treating the South as an agricultural colony, and like England did to its American colonies, taxed them almost into bankruptcy for shipping goods that didn't ever leave the country, but simply went north.
Another thing I've learned recently is that the Northeast, where the industrialists that wanted to destroy the South had their factories and families, was largely against the original Revolution, being a hotbed of Tories and spies. Two generations later, the children of those traitors were plotting to undermine the limited-government constitutional guidelines and establish a more centralized, authoritarian government.
Their first real victory in that area was getting James Buchanan elected president after Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce managed to steer the country to at least a stalemate over Southern industrialization and westward expansion -- issues the North vehemently opposed.
The irony is that history will tell you that Fillmore was a "do-nothing" and Pierce a divider. The reality is that both saw the benefits of letting the South alone to modernize and expand economically to whatever extent businessmen and bankers wanted to invest in the efforts, benefits that would eventually make the whole country better, more prosperous, and put a natural, peaceful end to slavery.
The Northern industrialists hidden agendas of centralized authoritarian government and concentration of wealth in the pockets of those few individuals demanded they undermine those efforts and destroy the South. With Buchanan and Lincoln, they achieved their goals. Today's liberals are the direct descendants of those anti-American activists, having traded economics for politics as their chief tool to achieve their ends.
The U.S. would not be the U.S. today if the South had won, but the CSA would be the stronger, freer nation in which to live. I believe the two nations would have been at each others' throats all this time, and whatever the North became would be Marxist in socioeconomic philosophy.
