What got banned?

I don't give a crap what South Carolina chooses for themselves. If they want to put a confederate flag at the corner of every intersection in all their major cities, I don't care. However, they must also live with the consequences of those decisions too. If the state loses out economically because of the flag or if it gains because of it - it's their choice.

However, I am also free to decide for myself what I think the flag represents given what I know about its history and who has used the flag. Based on what I know, I judge it to be a symbol of slavery and racism.

Dylann Roof drove an Elantra to commit the killings........BAN HYUNDAI!!!!

We all currently live under a flag responsible for killing off an entire ethnicity. But,

(06-24-2015 08:12 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  We all currently live under a flag responsible for killing off an entire ethnicity. But,

Your man is made of straw.

(06-24-2015 08:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 08:12 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  We all currently live under a flag responsible for killing off an entire ethnicity. But,

Your man is made of straw.

Is it?

Folks are calling for a ban of the Confederate flag on public property on grounds of past atrocities.

..........
......
...

Yeah, it is.

(06-24-2015 08:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 08:12 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  We all currently live under a flag responsible for killing off an entire ethnicity. But,

Your man is made of straw.

How so?

(06-24-2015 08:18 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Yeah, it is.

Nope. Simply calling out a double-standard.

People are cherry-picking their butthurt.

As bad a slavery was, at least the Confederacy didn't perpetuate genocide.

I also call on all Britons to rage until the Union Jack is torn down.

The atrocities tied to that flag.....oh hell. I'll stop.

"but, but, but, that other flag over there is way worse!"

(06-24-2015 09:02 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 08:16 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 07:48 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 07:10 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Historically that is not quite accurate, while the Union had about 200,000 black troops, any blacks in the Confederacy were support troops (cooks, teamster etc.) and slaves for the Confederacy, there is no supportive historical record supporting blacks took up arms and fought for the Confederacy, it's just not true. Besides who would be dumb enough to give a person a weapon he may use on you because you have his people in slavery, fly's in the face of all common sense for those to make blanket statements like this"there were many blacks who fought for the Confederacy" is misrepresenting history and being fallacious while doing it.

If you had bothered doing any simple google search you could see your post is fallacious.

There certainly weren't as many as in the north, but there were some.
http://www.confederatelegion.com/Black_C...diers.html

I stand by what I posted, no serious Historical Academician, recognizes blacks fought in significant numbers for the south, there is no serious historical record supporting this. It is ludicrous to make such statements, it fly's in the face of all reason. Another thing, because it is on the internet does not mean it is true, there are all kind of charlatans posting, all kind of falsehood on the internet, the equivalent of your modern day snake oil salesman. People who deny the Holocaust ever happen, and so on.

So no Negro fought for the Southern Cause? Interesting and incorrect !

repeat "fought in significant numbers for the south" ya'll know what "significant" means, right? Starting to have my doubts...sheeeeesh.

You added that after your first statement was proven ridiculous.

(06-24-2015 11:19 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Southerners also have had to put up with over a century of northern prejudice. When I moved to Ohio, someone asked me, "Are Kentuckians dumb?" There's this disdain for southerners that permeates the north. Northerners are bigots. They just don't understand that. Lynard Skynard had an answer for Neil Young (look it up). It was kind of amusing when Boston had riots against integration (not the riots, but the hypocrisy of those in Massachusetts).

Southerners are just as ridiculous towards Northerners. I can't tell you how many times people told me - not asked me, told me - that in the North nobody says hello to each other on the street and everyone is rude and mean.

How absurd is that? Seriously, how is that for propaganda? However, because their granddaddy told them that, of course they believe it. He believed it too when his pappy told him the same myth 40 years earlier.

As someone who has lived all over the place, I can assure you there are just as many stupid Northerners as there are Southerners. Likewise, there are just as many a-hole Southerners as there are Northerners. Neither intelligence or character is a byproduct of geography.

BTW, Neil Young is from the North but he is not from the Northern United States. He is from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Also, the song you are referencing also goes on to defend a disgraced president and arguably the biggest political scandal in American history. Given each's place in American history, that's probably one Skynard would like to have back.

As for the issue at hand, about the flag, I do believe in a state's right to choose how it adorns its capital building. However, any state that chooses to display a symbol of hatred and intolerance towards an ethnic group that comprises roughly 13 percent of our nation's total population is not a state that I would ever consider visiting or patronizing. Also, no African American should set foot in that state again - much less play football for one of its schools. There are plenty of other options where the people actually like and accept you on days other than game days and who will like and accept you even if your playing career doesn't go quite as well as you had planned.

Its clear you haven't the slightest comprehension of the song or of southerners. "Watergate doesn't bother me, does your conscience bother you?"

(06-24-2015 08:28 PM)Smaug Wrote:  "but, but, but, that other flag over there is way worse!"

So at what point does something become a racist symbol?


The Confederate Battle flag is about 153 years old.

The Stars and Stripes for 238 years. In that time that flag oppressed blacks, Native Americans, Irish, Japanese Americans, Filipinos, and Puerto Ricans.

(06-24-2015 01:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 10:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  So how do you feel about the Illini nickname being backward and disgusting? Are there any Illini left? Or were they all exterminated in the name of manifest destiny?

As noted previously, the Illini nickname came from the moniker for Illinois soldiers that fought in World War II and not from any Native American group. That's why the NCAA has not made an issue of the Illini name (unlike the University of North Dakota and other examples). Chief Illiniwek, which was the mascot and old logo used for Illinois, has been eliminated.

Look - I get it. People don't want to believe that the symbol that they love (or believe is steeped in tradition or represents something completely different) is perceived to be bigoted or racist. That was exactly how I felt about Chief Illiniwek for a long time - I made arguments similar to what I'm hearing from defenders about the Confederate flag, such as "The Chief is respectful", "It's different than the Redskins or other Native American mascots that are truly racist", "It's tradition", and, of course, the classic defense of "People that aren't from here don't understand and outsiders can't tell us what to do!"

However, I eventually evolved to understand that whatever I believed Chief Illiniwek meant to me was completely irrelevant. I had no authority to state whether the Chief was offensive or not because, as a half-Polish/half-Chinese person, I had absolutely no skin in the game. It was easy to pass something off as the Chief being a target of the PC police because it wasn't making a statement on my heritage or racial background.

The turning point was when I watched a Chief performance next to a Native American and, for the first time after having cheered for the Chief dozens of times before, I felt embarrassed. And if I felt embarrassed watching the Chief with a Native American, how on Earth could I defend it as not, at the very least, being offensive at some level (if not outright racist)?

Apply the same test to yourself. If you invited an African-American person to your house, would you seriously display the Confederate flag there? Would you honestly not feel a tinge of embarrassment/remorse/etc.? What if you were walking down the street with an African-American and saw a Confederate flag? How would you feel? Is it honestly just a neutral symbol to you in that moment? Can you sincerely not separate how it is now perceived as a symbol regarding race from its original historical intent?

If you wouldn't display the Confederate flag to an African-American person in your own house, then the state capitol, which is supposed to be the "house" for all people of that state, shouldn't be displaying it, either. This isn't a case of the PC police run amok - this is simply common decency in the home of a state government that is supposed to be welcoming to all of its citizens. People are confusing whether the state *can* fly the flag (as the state *can* do anything) with whether it *should* as a matter of human decency (as opposed to focusing on defiance toward outsiders, which is a commonly awful justification for bad behavior throughout history).

I wouldn't. But I know that someone isn't a KKK sympathizer just because they do and don't have any problem with them displaying it on their own property. I'm not going to impose my behavior and values on others.

(06-24-2015 02:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 02:04 PM)VA49er Wrote:  After all this PC nonsense dies down, people will realize that supporting the flag does not make one a racist and not support the flag does not make one non racist.

Sigh... the old reflexive "PC" defense. There are many instances where overly sensitive PC people are ridiculous. This isn't one of those instances. The Republican South Carolina politicians that willingly brought this up over the past several days in the first place are hardly the types that have bowed to PC/liberal/Hollywood/outsider/etc. interests on almost any matter. I don't think anyone should be naive to think that "support the flag = racist" and "not supporting the flag = not racist", but it's also EXTREMELY naive to think this is some standard reflexive liberal PC police issue. We're talking about a widely known controversial symbol being flown prominently on state property.

Its fine if South Carolinans bring it up.

(06-24-2015 05:42 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 05:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Dang that's awesome. Is that in Georgia?

Probably not for long.

I always thought it was kinda strange

Stone Mountain in Atlanta.

Even the far left atheistic columnist in the Atlanta paper doesn't think Jeff Davis, Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson should be removed. Its not in any danger.

(06-24-2015 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 02:52 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  So you prefer to agree with the racist hate groups who have co-opted it on its meaning? I'm not sure why.

This is probably the most thought-provoking question that you've posed here. To me, it's a matter of degree. Condemning all 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide simply based on certain terrorist groups would be like condemning all Christians for the acts of right wing crazies. Meanwhile, the Confederate flag is largely being used by a subset of a specific region of the country where, even in the most charitable interpretation, was created in connection with a military cause that is tied to preserving slavery. [b]The perception is that the proportion of hate groups to "normal" people supporting the Confederate flag is much higher compared to the fringe groups of Muslims, Christians and other religions.
[/b]
As an educated white male brought up in an upper middle class suburban household, I'm privileged in this country and most of the world. Any limitations placed upon me due to political correctness pale in comparison to the advantages that I have over people that weren't born into my position. My leeway in complaining about political correctness is much less compared to others' complaining about lack of educational opportunity, being born into a terrible neighborhood, etc.

The highlighted is why some on here are calling you ignorant. That may be your perception in Chicago. The hate groups who like the flag are miniscule.

There's nothing about the feeling for the flag that has to do with slavery even among the hate groups. There's not much reverence for the Stars and Bars because it represents the Confederate government. The battle flag represents the people.

It seems that after the war, the flag sort of fell into disuse. This particular rebel flag didn't see a resurgence until the 1900s, why is that? What is the motivation?

Now I'm not going to say that everyone, more than a small fraction, have them for racist reasons. Hell, I think most have them on hats, bikinis, mudflaps, shirts and whatnot as a form of social currency. They aren't exactly history buffs themselves and probably haven't traced their lineage past grandma.

BTW

I think more anger needs to be directed at this flag