Attack on the Confederate Flag?

[posthuman]

to some people the confederate flag stands for states rights.
to some people it stands for racism & slavery.
to others it represents southern culture in general.
to some people it stands for secession.
to others it represents heritage.
to some people it stands for oppression.
to others it reminds them of freedom.
one person looks at it and is reminded of tyranny by seeing it raised, and another looks at it and is reminded of tyranny by having it taken down.

what it truly means isn't settled by any single person's view of it.


whatever it represents to you, or whatever you think or say it represents,
what i want to know is what comes into your mind when you see this picture:

 

[posthuman]

sorry, just a minor correction / clarification and i don't mean to express an opinion by pointing this out:

The flag is protected under the constitution.

* under the constitution of the confederate states of America.

not the "united states" of America.

 

[phil38111]

to some people the confederate flag stands for states rights.
to some people it stands for racism & slavery.
to others it represents southern culture in general.
to some people it stands for secession.
to others it represents heritage.
to some people it stands for oppression.
to others it reminds them of freedom.
one person looks at it and is reminded of tyranny by seeing it raised, and another looks at it and is reminded of tyranny by having it taken down.

what it truly means isn't settled by any single person's view of it.


whatever it represents to you, or whatever you think or say it represents,
what i want to know is what comes into your mind when you see this picture:

View attachment 122840

This isn't a scholarly source or anything, just what I saw a friend on facebook post about the Rebel Flag on facebook.


During the solicitation for a 2nd Confederate national flag, there were many different types of designs proposed, nearly all making use of the battle flag, which by 1863 had become popular among those living in the Confederacy. The flag was designed by William T. Thompson, with assistance from William Ross Postell. W.T. Thompson, the flag's designer, referred to his design as "The White Man's Flag". In referring to the white field that comprised a large part of the flag's design elements, Thompson stated that its color symbolized the "supremacy of the white man"

"As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause."
W.T. Thompson

George William Bagby praised the flag, as did others at the time, and stating that it embodied "the destiny of the Southern master and his African slave", pointing them southward to "the banks of the Amazon", expressing the desire many Confederates held of expanding slavery southward into Latin America.

In GA, the Confederate battle flag was reintroduced as an element of the state flag in 1956, just 2 years after the Supreme Court decision Brown v Board of Education. It was considered by many to be a protest against school desegregation. It was also raised at Ole Miss during protests against integration of schools


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Is this a fabricated myth????? I doubt it. I don't know what his sources are though. I don't care enough about this, right now to do the research, but if this is true then the rebel flag is racist.

 

[crossnote]

to some people the confederate flag stands for states rights.
to some people it stands for racism & slavery.
to others it represents southern culture in general.
to some people it stands for secession.
to others it represents heritage.
to some people it stands for oppression.
to others it reminds them of freedom.
one person looks at it and is reminded of tyranny by seeing it raised, and another looks at it and is reminded of tyranny by having it taken down.

what it truly means isn't settled by any single person's view of it.


whatever it represents to you, or whatever you think or say it represents,
what i want to know is what comes into your mind when you see this picture:

View attachment 122840

a futile attempt at mental manipulation.

 

[posthuman]

The left-wing liberal Democrats seemingly have set themselves up as having all authority on what does or does not offend.

i dunno every side of the aisle and even the in-between seems to have opinions about what they do and don't like.

some whine louder than others, and some whine about different things. didn't you just give an example of deciding what flag you felt was offensive?

that's how i see it anyway.

where is the right not to be offended at in the constitution, anyway?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Please provide empirical scholarly sources that support the assertions you made below (that I've placed in bold).

That was already provided on post #56 of this thread.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Ah, very good sir. I look forward to reading the information at those links you provided.

That was already provided on post #56 of this thread.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I agree with you on this. People can exercise their first amendment and fly the confederate flag if they want to and it should be for sale on Ebay and Amazon and available on license plates and flown from a state capital too imo and my people are from the North and fought on the side of the North.

But big lefty baby can't allow anyone to have personal freedom. Big lefty baby must use government bully to persecute everyone that offends big lefty baby. Waaaa! Wad up the Bill of Rights, big baby liberal wants to use it to blow their nose.

i dunno every side of the aisle and even the in-between seems to have opinions about what they do and don't like.

some whine louder than others, and some whine about different things. didn't you just give an example of deciding what flag you felt was offensive?

that's how i see it anyway.

where is the right not to be offended at in the constitution, anyway?

 

[skipp]

The girl in that picture reminds me of so many people I meet on the Internet lol.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

The girl in that picture reminds me of so many people I meet on the Internet lol.

Some of whom are right here on CC&F.

 

[crossnote]

Some of whom are right here on CC&F.

Skipp can say it 'cause she's a girl, but you?...a guy?...sexist!!

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Skipp can say it 'cause she's a girl, but you?...a guy?...sexist!!

I prefer the term "ideologue."

 

[Nautilus]

I've heard more about this stupid flag in the past 5 days than I have in 31 years of living in the south. Its reaching a point of stupidity I just can't handle. From both sides.

 

[skipp]

Talking about stupidity, Apple is now banning Civil War games from their App Store because some of them have images of the Confederate flag in them. Apple Bans Civil War Games from App Store over Confederate Flag - Breitbart

 

[crossnote]

Talking about stupidity, Apple is now banning Civil War games from their App Store because some of them have images of the Confederate flag in them. Apple Bans Civil War Games from App Store over Confederate Flag - Breitbart

These hysterical companies are not above personal boycott.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You outdid yourself . Good job.

Sorry, Phil, I don't agree. But we all have opinions, don't we?

First, the Tariff Act of 1820 essentially treated the South as an agricultural colony of the North. Agricultural and unfinished textile goods shipped to the northern manufacturing states were taxed to the producers at a 75% rate, two-thirds of those taxes being levied against farmers and producers in North and South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia. Only about 15% of those taxes were returned to benefit the South. Most of those taxes were spent in the North, and in the new western territories. Unionists actually stated they wanted to preserve the Union in order to maintain and even increase those tariffs. (see John Randolph of Roanoke and the Politics of Slavery in the Early Republic, pages 122-124)

Another motivation for the war, from the North's perspective, was to keep Southern products available for pennies on the dollar of their actual market value. In order to foment war, the North began a morality campaign against slavery that blamed the South for virtually every aspect of the evil commerce while conveniently ignoring the reality that five northern states -- Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island -- were the primary conduits of slaves into the U.S. (See Econmics and the Civil War)

Third, the South was vehemently opposed to the gradual centralization of government power, whereas the northern industrialists and bankers opposed the original form of the constitutional structure of the nation that relied heavily on local autonomy through States' Rights. The founders -- a good number of them Virginian farmers and livestock producers -- established a limited-powers federal government concerned only with defense, a monetary system, foreign relations, and loosely regulated commerce. The South was fighting to preserve that system. With the North's victory, the system of government actually changed, and the morass of foolishness, overregulation, and social welfare we have today is the result. (See The Confederacy)

Cultural differences and Christian values were another core issue between the North and the South. The North had, in just the 80 or so years after the Revolution, become largely secular humanist in makeup while the South was strongly and staunchly Christian. Historians have attributed this to the differences in national origin for the two populations. The South was largely of Briton, Irish, and Scottish decent whereas the North was mostly Danish and Anglo-Saxon. The two lineages had been at war for 1,000 years in Europe. (See Religion in the Civil War: A Southern Perspective)

Slavery was only an indirect cause of the war. In fact, there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as ever existed in the north, and the educated Southerner was in favor of gradual emancipation of the slaves. The use of slaves was dying out, as I stated in another post, because of the huge success of the industrialized South -- which frightened the northern industrialists because the South could do it cheaper and better than they could. Thus they created a pseudo-moral campaign against slavery when the reality was the continuation of slavery actually benefited the North, as it was slowing down and holding back the industrialization of the region. But they didn't want just to slow down the South's industrialization. They wanted to destroy it, and the competition that it represented.

 

[Dude653]

Actually history is clear on this. This southern economy thrived on slavery and when Lincoln won the election they decided succeed from the union in order to protect their interest in slavery.. This secession was treasonous and unconstitutional. The flag then surfaced during the civil right movement as a symbol of white supremacy and opposition to integration

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Making an assertion and being able to substantiate it are two completely different things. Let me show you how this works. Pink unicorns eat purple cheese and poop rainbows. There, now that's an assertion. The tricky part, of course, is being able to prove it.

You've done exactly the same thing I did with my pink unicorn assertion. You made an assertion and proved nothing. Now Vigilant Warrior, on the other hand, made an argument and substantiated it with reputable sources.

Unfortunately for you, his properly sourced argument refutes your unsourced assertion.

Please make a note of this so you won't just be posting your feelings and faulty best thinking in the future which is a waste of everyone's time to even bother reading.

Actually history is clear on this. This southern economy thrived on slavery and when Lincoln won the election they decided succeed from the union in order to protect their interest in slavery.. This secession was treasonous and unconstitutional. The flag then surfaced during the civil right movement as a symbol of white supremacy and opposition to integration

 

[crossnote]

Making an assertion and being able to substantiate it are two completely different things. Let me show you how this works. Pink unicorns eat purple cheese and poop rainbows. There, now that's an assertion. The tricky part, of course, is being able to prove it.

You've done exactly the same thing I did with my pink unicorn assertion. You made an assertion and proved nothing. Now Vigilant Warrior, on the other hand, made an argument and substantiated it with reputable sources.

Unfortunately for you, his properly sourced argument refutes your unsourced assertion.

Please make a note of this so you won't just be posting your feelings and faulty best thinking in the future which is a waste of everyone's time to even bother reading.

I thought Dude did substantiate his post, he said "history is clear on this".

 

[jaybird88]

Making an assertion and being able to substantiate it are two completely different things. Let me show you how this works. Pink unicorns eat purple cheese and poop rainbows.

i think its napoleon ice cream and not purple cheese, duhh.

I thought Dude did substantiate his post, he said "history is clear on this".

only history thats taught in the naivety anonymous group.