# How was the civil war not about slavery?



## Janx (Feb 17, 2012)

Hopefully we can keep this about history and not modern politics.

This is a fork from the ethics thread as [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] was making a reference to Deadlands and its handling of the Civil War

Here's the baseline of my thoughts.  I'm from Minnesota.  We weren't even a state yet, but sent some troops to fight in the war.  To us, in school we're basically taught that the Civil war was basically about slavery.  That southerners called it "the War of Northern Aggression" and that it was really about States Rights.  I've yet to meet a southerner who called it that.  I now live in Texas, where it seems like they were fools to even get involved in the Civil War, but that's another story.

I suspect there were a lot of issues dividing the north and south to cause Seccession.  The crux being "States Rights".  But it always seems to me, that the hidden sub-clause of that reason is "to have slaves."

The south's economy was heavily reliant on manual labor (slaves), the north was not.  Society in the north WAS becoming increasingly anti-slavery (they could afford to, their economy not depend on it).  This would be a bad thing to southern economy.

Aside from Lincoln dicking around with WHEN he freed the slaves, the actual war was fought because the US Government decided states could not opt out.  That makes sense from an organizational standpoint, when the boss who is elected and represents the whole says "we go left", everybody needs to go left because thats how democracy works.

My question, from this point is, if slavery WASN'T the driving theme between the division of North and South, what was?  It wasn't illegal immigration or gay marriage.  Was it taxes?

What was the Federal government (and the North) telling the South to do that was so objectionable, they pulled out of the union that was not driven by the slavery issue.

Or, if we had an alternate history where Slavery did not exist in America, what was the remaining issue that still would have caused the divide?

Remember, other than my jab at 2 current hot topics, let's try not to get political (at least in the modern and offensive sense).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 17, 2012)

IBTL.



> What was the Federal government (and the North) telling the South to do that was so objectionable, they pulled out of the union that was not driven by the slavery issue.




They were not respecting property rights of Southerners.  The property in question?  Slaves.

Slavery was mentioned in most of the articles of secession.

Basically, scratch the surface of any non-slavery reason given for secession, and you'll find slavery.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Feb 17, 2012)

I think, at it's core, you hit the nail on the head regarding States Rights.  The South maintained that the North didn't have the right to say "you can no longer base your economy on slave labor."

And the North said, "To heck with that.  Look up the Interstate Commerce Clause."

And the South then said "Screw that noise.  Enjoy being the United States.  We're gonna just leave you to yourselves and do our own thing if you're going to pull that crap."

And then the North said "Uh, no you won't, and we'll kill you to make sure you won't."

So, it was States Rights, _in regards to an individual state's right to legalize slavery_.  Southern historians will tell you it was *just* States Rights (i.e. "My state should be able to make a law regarding [X] without the Federal government putting a stop to it if it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution"), but I would wager that's only just to avoid letting any critics claim they're saying that the wholesale capturing, buying, selling, and trading human beings is an acceptable practice.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 17, 2012)

Look up the "Cornerstone" speech from Alexander Stephens (Vice President of the Confederacy) and you'll realize that it's all about slavery.


----------



## jonesy (Feb 17, 2012)

I was taught in school that the schism started with several attempts to expand the slavery to the northern states, which was what Lincoln had been opposing. Slavery was about to become Big Business, and they wanted to start selling to everyone. This would have destabilised the economy in the north and made the slave states the economic focus.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 17, 2012)

jonesy said:


> I was taught in school that the schism started with several attempts to expand the slavery to the northern states, which was what Lincoln had been opposing. Slavery was about to become Big Business, and they wanted to start selling to everyone. This would have destabilised the economy in the north and made the slave states the economic focus.




I don't think that is correct - the import of slaves into the US was banned as of 1808.  The slaves that were still within the US were bred to continue the slave population, as well as slaves being smuggled into the country, of course.

However, I don't think there were enough slaves around to have a big impact on the economy of the far more industrialized north.  I believe some Southern states attempted to get the ban on slave importation revoked in the 1850s, but it was rejected.  That may have been what Lincoln had spoken against?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 17, 2012)

How it was once explained to me...

South did not see "slavery" they saw a cheap work force, the North was seeing industry, a population boom and they needed a trained workforce; a work force that was being unionized.  Money was flowing South, creating a very weathy power block.  A power block that could control the country.  The North had votes, the South had money.  

The North saw the possiblity of industry moving south, where there was a controlled cheap work force - so, the South saw the war as economics.


----------



## jonesy (Feb 17, 2012)

NewJeffCT said:


> However, I don't think there were enough slaves around to have a big impact on the economy of the far more industrialized north.



4 million slaves, 27 million free people. That's not peanuts.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 17, 2012)

jonesy said:


> 4 million slaves, 27 million free people. That's not peanuts.




No, it is certainly not peanuts.  However, how many of those 4 millions slaves were needed to do whatever they were doing on the various Southern plantations and farms?


----------



## jonesy (Feb 17, 2012)

NewJeffCT said:


> No, it is certainly not peanuts.  However, how many of those 4 millions slaves were needed to do whatever they were doing on the various Southern plantations and farms?



That's probably impossible to answer. I got the numbers from the 1860 U.S. Census.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 17, 2012)

"How was the civil war not about slavery?"

Basically, it wasn't about slavery for some folks because we, as humans, have a need or a desire to see our ancestors as good people. The attempts over the years to revise or ignore the historical record aren't anything new or special. You can see the same desire to deny the ugly actions of past generations in plenty of other parts of the world, like Japan and its WWII record, or Turkey and the Armenian genocide.

Also, IBTL!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 18, 2012)

jonesy said:


> 4 million slaves, 27 million free people. That's not peanuts.




You have to watch that Census, blacks were counted as .25 of pop for the longest time, so the numbers may be in error.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2012)

While wikipedia is by no means definitive, it is often a good starting place for investigation.

American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Issues at the time were somewhat more complicated than, "can we have slaves".  There was growing schism between North and South in terms of economy, culture, and political values.  There was conflict over not just whether states that allowed slavery could continue, but whether slavery would be allowed in new states as the Union grew.  This tied into the cultural split - Southerners wondered if their culture would be allowed to grow, or if it would get fenced in and marginalized, and whether their needs were going to be represented on the Federal level going forward.  

There was conflict over whether a slave-owner could travel to the North with slaves, and retain what he felt to be his property.  There was conflict over whether property in new territories would be bought by wealthy slave-owners and worked by slave labor, or owned and worked by individual "yeoman farmers".

Ultimately, there was conflict over whether it was legal to leave the Union.  The Constitution contained no provision for such. To many people at the time, this was often as important a question as the issue of slavery.  If you asked a Northern soldier of the time why he was fighting, he would probably answer, "to preserve the Union," not, "to abolish slavery."


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

i tend to avoid these discussions because they become emotional and words like good and evil start getting thrown around. If you are going to discuss it you have to be able to divorce your modern perspective on the subject and look at it dispassionately.

The south's entire economy was based on slave labor the north economy was not. 

As more states joined the union and it looked like the abolitionist were going to control the federal government and pass laws outlawing slavery. The south felt that they and their needs would not be fairly represented in Washington and that people who had no ties to to the southern economy would be in a position to tell them what to do even if it destroyed their economy. 

So they did what the colonies did in 1776 they rebelled.

So yes the issue of slavery was the root cause but it was more than just that a lot had to do with just how much power the states would have and how much the federal government would have.  

Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves he went to war to keep the country together.

As a Southerner who had family who fought in that war my dad's grandfather fought in it for the south and someone who has studied and read a lot of books on this subject my opinion is this I don't blame the south for going to war they were fighting for their way of life and it was becoming increasingly obvious that it would be a fight. That the abolitionists did not want slavery phased out but wanted it ended right away. Something that south's economy could not have handled. 

The north should have backed off on abolishing slavery and worked with the south to phase slavery out like was done in the Caribbean islands. Read about how they did it and you see that it worked with far less loss of life without destroying the economy and with less repercussions for the former slaves. 

As a modern American I feel that Lincoln did the right thing in fighting to preserve the union and I feel that in some cases the federal government should step all over states rights. I don't believe that the majority has the right to pass laws that effect the minority. For example issues like gay marriage imo belongs at the federal level not the state level. 

One thing that does bother me is the idea that if you had family who fought in the war on the south's side that you believe slavery was right and that you are wrong to admire them for taking up arms to preserve their way of life. 

I can admire Robert E Lee as military man and still think slavery was a dark chapter in our history. I can admire men like my great grandfather who fought a war with little resources in the end fighting in their bare feet with not enough ammunition for a dying cause. 

I also admire Lincoln for having to try and deal with one of the worse chapters in American history and I find it a shame he was assassinated because he didn't want to punish the south and the south would have been better off if had lived.


----------



## Jack7 (Feb 18, 2012)

Personally, I think it was both a series of States Rights/Union issues and a Slavery issue.

However, it is simply not possible to have a true and voluntary Union when part of a Union keeps people as chattel, and the other parts disavow themselves of the same.

That is simply too large a moral gap to maintain such a Union indefinitely. Eventually such a moral gap will lead to a War, an Insurrection, or a Split.

I am a proud Son of the South. Born and raised in the first state to secede. However slavery, like murder, sex slavery, etc. is simply too large a moral gap for me to have crossed. 

I would not fight a war whose end result would have been to retain men as slaves, no matter whatever other good arguments could have been made in defense of that war. I simply believe as an American and as a Christian that slavery is an immoral act (others at the time may have felt differently, that's their right, but I don't think their rights would have trumped the rights of other men's liberties), and that I could not support it as a principle of either Just War or Basic Law. I feel confident that if I had lived in that era I would still have felt the same way. I would have either moved to Texas to become a Ranger or Frontiersman, or moved northwest and fought for the North. Maybe I would have been a spy, but more likely a guerilla fighter or frontier's scout.

But I would not have fought to promote or maintain slavery, and would not have apologized for such an act of treason against my state. An Unjust state is to me a state I feel no loyalty too.

To me a state has to meet a certain baseline moral standard for me to feel loyalty to it. So no matter the validity of the other arguments concerning possible war grievances, I personally could not have crossed the slavery divide.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 18, 2012)

It was a states rights issue. What the abolitionists don't want you to know was that someunion states had slavery until the end of the war (preexisting slaves were ok, new were not).

The emancipation proclamation only really was aimed at the confeds and not union slaves. The reason: the South conscripted slaves into their army. Since slaves made up a sizable part of the population, and did not need to be paid wages, it was only natural for lincoln and his administration to attempt to gut the souths army especially when they spent half the war fleeing the confederate advance.

 -Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## Spatula (Feb 18, 2012)

It's very easy to say that the situation should have been handled peacefully and that the Civil War shouldn't have happened. That dodges the question of why the slave states would have wanted to participate in any scheme to abolish slavery, peaceful or otherwise. Slavery was their entire economy.

It's not like there weren't plenty of proposals at the time to deal with the problem. Lincoln himself was in favor of buying the slaves (it's up in the air if the federal government could have actually afforded this) and forcibly resettling them in Africa (ditto on the logistics here). But the fact is, any measure to end slavery would have required the cooperation of the slave states in Congress. And the slave-holding states did not want to end slavery. They had no economic reason to do so. Heck, they had every economic reason _not_ to do so.


----------



## Starman (Feb 18, 2012)

Ta-Nehisi Coates has written a lot about the Civil War and why slavery was the driving force behind it. As to the economics of it, here he is about how valuable slaves were.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

Jack7 said:


> Personally, I think it was both a series States Rights/Union issues and a Slavery issue.
> 
> However, it is simply not possible to have a true and voluntary Union when part of a Union keeps people as chattel, and the other parts disavow themselves of the same.
> 
> ...




Please don't take this wrong way but you can't say for sure that being raised in that culture that you would hold the views you hold today.

 I am a product of my environment I grew up during the civil rights movement and the ideas of equal rights for both sexes so I am different than my parents were. My dad was born in 1918 in South Carolina and until the day he died in 2004 he felt that  interracial marriages were wrong that everyone should stick to their own kind. After serving in the Army Air Core in WW2 he never trusted the Japaneses. He was a good and honest man he didn't belief in the Klan or in lynching or any kind of violence in his job at Delta Air Lines he treated all the passengers with equal courtesy. He was a product of his time. 

His mother was born in 1886  her father had fought in the war when he was 16 out of his six brothers and father he was the only one who came back. Until the day she died she hated Yankees. She also believed that the carpet baggers who came in after the war made it worse for the blacks then they had it before the war.  

My point is that you can't guess how you would be or what your views would be if you were raised in a different environment.


----------



## Chairman7w (Feb 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> One thing that does bother me is the idea that if you had family who fought in the war on the south's side that you believe slavery was right...




Who said that?  I've never heard anyone claim that. Ever.



Elf Witch said:


> and that you are wrong to admire them for taking up arms to preserve their way of life.




You would be, because they took up arms to preserve their right to keep slaves.  That's wrong.  Not really a debate there is there?




Elf Witch said:


> I can admire men like my great grandfather who fought a war with little resources in the end fighting in their bare feet with not enough ammunition for a dying cause.




You COULD, but why would you?  He was fighting to preserve slavery.  Just cause he didn't have shoes doesn't make it a noble thing.

Just cause someone's family doesn't make it your life mission to admire what they did.  (not YOU personally, I'm just talking in a general sense)

If my great grandfather fought for slavery, I'd be ashamed of what he did, whether he had shoes, socks, ammo or a can opener.  It wouldn't matter if he was my grandfather.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

Spatula said:


> It's very easy to say that the situation should have been handled peacefully and that the Civil War shouldn't have happened. That dodges the question of why the slave states would have wanted to participate in any scheme to abolish slavery, peaceful or otherwise. Slavery was their entire economy.
> 
> It's not like there weren't plenty of proposals at the time to deal with the problem. Lincoln himself was in favor of buying the slaves (it's up in the air if the federal government could have actually afforded this) and forcibly resettling them in Africa (ditto on the logistics here). But the fact is, any measure to end slavery would have required the cooperation of the slave states in Congress. And the slave-holding states did not want to end slavery. They had no economic reason to do so. Heck, they had every economic reason _not_ to do so.




You cannot say this for certain because it didn't happen. For one thing more and more of the country was becoming anti slavery even in the south there were people speaking out against it. Also the plan to buy the slaves did not address the issue of replacing them as workers. 

The end result of the civil war was a destroyed economy for the south that took well into the late 60 for it to start recovering from and a deep resentment towards those former slaves and the horrible Jim Crow laws. 

Like I said if you look at how the end of slavery was handled in the Caribbean islands were it was phased out in steps you didn't see the issue we had here in America. 

Just like in the alternative stories I have read where the south won the war have them having slavery today. Which makes little sense to me because it cost more money to feed, house and cloth a slave then it cost to buy a vacuum cleaner or to run a tractor.

Look at the fact that the huge servant population has disappeared except for the very wealthy.


----------



## Jack7 (Feb 18, 2012)

> Please don't take this wrong way but you can't say for sure that being  raised in that culture that you would hold the views you hold today.



I don't take it personally. But I am also certain of the type of person I am. I've been in situations where my morals were tested. Dangerous, even deadly situations.

I've never personally violated my own morals principles, even when it would have been much, much safer to do otherwise, situation be damned. My wife is black and when we got married it was illegal according to our state Constitution. Never bothered me at all to break that law, or any other I ever felt unjust. I have never feared any kind of opposition, and I don't need the comfort of the culture backing me up either. I don't care in either direction.

That's the way I am. I've never feared the crowd or the opinion of the general public, or the culture. I am culturally amoral when it comes to my personal behavior and honor and morals. I am neither afraid of dying for a cause, nor killing for one.

But no, I don't take that kinda thing personally. 

Let me rephrase it this way. If I had been born a very different man in the Civil War era then I might have been different. That's certainly true.

If I were born then the same kind of man I am now, then it wouldn't have made any difference to me at all. Never really know of course, but if you took me and put me in a different era, the era wouldn't have made any real difference to my morals.

I'm sure it would have made a difference as to my particular actions, but not to my outlook or overall behavior. I've simply never cared what other people thought if I thought them wrong.

And no other person's behavior, or group of people's behavior, regardless of the situation, has ever forced me to do anything I wouldn't have done, or not done, anyway. I simply don't care much for other people's opinions if they conflict with my morals, nor do I fear other people's opinions, or the opinions of the general culture. 

As a little aside most of my grandparents didn't much care for interracial marriages either. Not at first anyways. Neither did my pastor or church. Or some of my friends. Or her family and friends. I told them all they could accept it or not, that was their choice. Wouldn't change my mind.

In time they all became great friends and family members with my wife. My mother's mother came to adore my wife and kids. But it didn't bother me at all that they didn't like it at first, and I told them so. That's life. 

Sometimes the bear gets you, and sometimes you get the bear. But if you won't stick to your guns, come hell or highwater, you never get the bear.

Bears don't scare me and not much else does either. 

But again, don't think I'm being a smartass. I didn't take it personally in any way. Just not in my nature to care much what others think. Or what my culture thinks for that matter.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

Chairman7w said:


> Who said that?  I've never heard anyone claim that. Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well then you have never hung around on many history sites and discussed the civil war. 

They took up arms to preserve their way of life to protect their economy. My great grandfather's family owned a dry goods store they did not keep slaves because it was not cost efficient for them. It was cheaper to put their families to work in the store than to keep slaves who had to be feed and clothed. 

I admire him because of everything he accomplished in his life both during the war and after.

Are you ashamed that the Deceleration of Independence was written by a slave owner and the first president of the United States was a slave owner? Do you think we should take down any monument to George Washington because he is someone we should be ashamed of?

I was taught by my history professor that if you truly want to understand why something happened you have to look at without your modern day morality coloring the facts.  So many people don't really have any kind of understanding of what was happening politically at the time of the Civil War all they can see is slavery bad. 

So they truly don't understand why the war happened. 

Slavery is an emotional issue but here is the sad truth and that is almost every culture has had some form of slavery. Back in the Victorian times the poor houses were a form of legalized slavery. Whole families were sentenced to them and forced to work for pennies in dangerous conditions. 

After the civil war the same men who had said slavery was wrong became railroad barons and hired cheap labor in the form of Chinese workers they were kept in deplorable conditions and were often killed or beaten to death. 

Military scholars often write papers on Robert E Lee because he was a brilliant tactician I have read his journals and the anguish he felt over taking arms against men he had admired and trained with. 

It is much more simpler I guess to paint everyone in the south as evil bad men because they owned slaves and fought for the right not be told what to do by the majority whose economy would not have been effected by this. 

I have a question if you had family who served with Custer would you be ashamed? Even knowing some of the horrible abuses of innocent life that the US Army did in breaking the will of the plains Indians? 

Are you ashamed that your own country just 50 years ago put your fellow country men in interment camps just because they were of Japanese ancestry?

The point I making here is that it easy to throw around words like shame when talking about our history. History is not like DnD filled with clear cut alignments it is made up of human beings who at times could be flawed but who were very much a product of their times. 

As a human race we have grown but we still have much growth ahead of us I wouldn't be surprise if 200 years from now most people look back at us as a bunch of barbarians.

I am only ashamed for my actions.


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 18, 2012)

The Civil War was _about_ slavery, but that is not what the war was fought over. Like usual, it was fought over money and power.

The thing people tend to do these days is relate "slavery" to "racism". People of the same race often enslave their own kind and that does not make them "racist". So in school, students are taught that slavery is of course bad, but it's implied that the southern states are "racist" while the northern states were not. So when you get into any kind of political debate, people ridicule the confederates as "the bad guys". It was a different time with different ways of thinking. There were no bad guys.

What really irks me is how people nowadays see a confederate flag as a symbol of racism. It is not. It's a symbol of the south and nothing more.

What the schools don't seem to explain to students is that yes, the Civil War *was* about slavery, but it was *not* an attempt to simply free them out of compassion. The Union was not trying to free slaves like knights on shining armor looking to help the black man. Northerners still did not see blacks as equals and they definitely were not simply going off to die so blacks would be free. 

The war was fought over the fact that the northern farmers who paid their laborers had a harder time competing with southern farmers who owned slaves and did not pay them. They wanted to level the playing field, which meant they wanted southern farmers to pay for labor. That meant, ending slavery. So Northerners were going off to die for profit and power.

Regardless of what you see in movies, slaves were not all treated poorly by their owners. Many slaves stuck around and were hired on as paid laborers. The sad fact is most were seen as property, but that doesn't mean the "property" was not taken care of. If farmers were treating slaves poorly, then they can't work as good and if they are sick or dead, it costs the farmer more money to treat or get a new slave.

I'm not trying to downplay slavery or defend it. I'm just pointing out that people get caught up in what they see in film and our text books glorify our kindness to hide our greediness. What would you rather tell school children; that we ended slavery cause we are so compassionate, or that we ended slavery so we could make more money? So our textbooks gloss over the money issue.

Of course, there was still more to the war than this. But this was the gist of it if you want to look at the slavery issue.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

Jack7 said:


> I don't take it personally. But I am also certain of the type of person I am. I've been in situations where my morals were tested. Dangerous, even deadly situations.
> 
> I've never personally violated my own morals principles, even when it would have been much, much safer to do otherwise, situation be damned. My wife is black and when we got married it was illegal according to our state Constitution. Never bothered me at all to break that law, or any other I ever felt unjust. I have never feared any kind of opposition, and I don't need the comfort of the culture backing me up either. I don't care in either direction.
> 
> ...




I understand what you are saying. I don't think you are a smartass. I often wonder how I being raised by one parent who was quite type racist and one who actually has members of the Klan who are proud of the fact that they hung those uppity blacks how I turned out to be the open minded person I am today.

I remember one of the worst spankings I ever got was because at a family dinner after listening to my Uncle JG going on and on about how all blacks should be shipped back to Africa of course he didn't use the word black.  I innocently asked why, it wasn't like they asked to come here they were ripped away from their families in Africa. I was around seven. My mother gave me the belt for being a smart ass. I was truly confused. 

Most of my family is rather racist today to different degrees.  So why am I not that way it was the environment I was raised in. This may sound silly but I think a lot has to do with the fact that I grew up in South Florida while the rest of my family was in Georgia and South Carolina and I was friends with Cubans and Jews. The silly part is that I think growing up being addicted to Star Trek with its message of equality had a lot to do with the person I became.

I was adopted I sometimes wonder if I had been raised in Aiken South Carolina would I be the the person I am today. 

So looking back to the south of 1860 most of those Southerners had never traveled there was no television or radio only books and papers the majority of them only knew their culture and in their culture slavery was legal. They heard it in their churches that god said slavery was okay. It is very hard to overcome what you are taught. 

One thing about me is that even as a child I hated any kind of injustice I have always had a strong sense of fairness. Maybe I have gene for that and it is hard wired in me. 

How much of what we become is environment VS genetics is something we are still unsure about.   

So maybe you are right it is hard wired into you to be the way you are and you would have been then same growing up in the mid 1800s. 

It is an interesting thing to ponder at least I think so.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> The end result of the civil war was a destroyed economy for the south that took well into the late 60 for it to start recovering from and a deep resentment towards those former slaves and the horrible Jim Crow laws.



The irony of the civil war was that if Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, was one of the reasons why the Jim Crow Laws were innacted since he backed off on his anti-successionist stances and turned a blind eye to the plight of the freedmen.

So yeah, even though the abolitionist won, they then decided to high five each other on the backs of the former slaves and plan to attack the next social issue rather then dealing with the fallout over their actions.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> The irony of the civil war was that if Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, was one of the reasons why the Jim Crow Laws were innacted since he backed off on his anti-successionist stances and turned a blind eye to the plight of the freedmen.
> 
> So yeah, even though the abolitionist won, they then decided to high five each other on the backs of the former slaves.




Well he had to he was in danger of being impeached. He was not a strong leader like Lincoln.


----------



## Starman (Feb 18, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> What really irks me is how people nowadays see a confederate flag as a symbol of racism. It is not. It's a symbol of the south and nothing more.




Ta-Nehisi Coates has written on the Confederate flag, too. 



			
				TNC said:
			
		

> My sense of the question is fairly simple--knowing the history of the Confederate flag, knowing that it was created, specifically, to symbolize a nation founded on the precepts of white supremacy and "African slavery," knowing that the pursuit of the Confederate cause ended with the murder of Abraham Lincoln, knowing that after the Civil War, the flag morphed from battle standard of white supremacy, to battle standard of white terrorism, were I white, it's very hard for me to imagine a situation in which I'd want to fly the flag.
> ...
> Formulating the question as "Is Lynyrd Skynyrd racist?" or "Are people who fly the Confederate flag racist?" or "Can you fly the flag and be progressive?" misses the point. The better question is posed to the young man, or woman, who would fly the flag today. Simply put, it's "How well do you know the history of the symbols you claim?" It really is that simple. It's not "Are you a racist?" it's "Are you conscious?"


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

Starman said:


> Ta-Nehisi Coates has written on the Confederate flag, too.




I have read a lot of his work and I think he is a little biased in his outlook. 

I own a confederate battle flag it was brought home by my great grandfather from the war. When he died my grandmother inherited it and when she died my dad was given it.

My dad left it and a few other Confederate memorabilia to me because of my interest in history. 

For some Southerners yes it is symbol of white supremacy for others it is part of our history and not a symbol of racism. The Klan has used the symbol of the cross to terrorize blacks but should we accuse anyone who wears a cross for religious purposes of being a racist. 

For a lot of young people the 'rebel' flag represented rebellion against the man. Southern bands like Lynard Skynner and the Allman Brothers were more about being rebels and the flag represented that to them because they didn't like was what going on in Washington at that time.

It infuriates me when they want to take the flag down that flies at the Confederate museum  or over the the fallen soldiers in Confederate grave yards they fought and died under that flag. 

I don't think the flag should be flown at state capitals it is not appropriate but not because of racism but because it represents sedition against the US.


----------



## Starman (Feb 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I have read a lot of his work and I think he is a little biased in his outlook.




Biased? How?



Elf Witch said:


> I own a confederate battle flag it was brought home by my great grandfather from the war. When he died my grandmother inherited it and when she died my dad was given it.
> 
> My dad left it and a few other Confederate memorabilia to me because of my interest in history.
> 
> ...




Fought and died under a flag that was flown in representation of a group of people that desperately wanted to promote the cause of slavery. And many groups after the Civil War used it as a symbol of that. Yeah, that doesn't mean everyone that wants to fly the flag is a racist, but why would you be proud of a symbol used to promote it?



Elf Witch said:


> I don't think the flag should be flown at state capitals it is not appropriate but not because of racism but because it represents sedition against the US.




The sedition was primarily for the cause of slavery. 

I'm really trying not to Godwin the thread, but symbols have power and other movements have used symbols that have taken on a certain meaning and I don't think that most people would take to kindly to people using that symbol for something and saying, "Oh, but I'm not like those other people that used this symbol."


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 18, 2012)

Starman said:


> knowing the history of the Confederate flag, knowing that it was created, specifically, to symbolize a nation founded on the precepts of white supremacy and "African slavery,"




Again, he's mistaking the south as being "racist" simply for owning slaves. Then he is relating racism with the flag that the south flew.

I don't understand why people like to believe the north was not racist just because they didn't own slaves. Blacks were not treated equally in the north. You can be racist without owning slaves. You can own slaves without being racist. If a person is unable to distinguish one from the other, then yes, he's going to label a confederate flag as a symbol of racism. Unfortunately, white supremacy groups can't distinguish one from the other. That still doesn't mean the flag was created to symbolize racism. Otherwise, every flag in the world would be a symbol of racism.

Think of it this way, calling the south racist for not wanting to give up their slaves is like calling any farmer today racist for not wanting to give up their tractors. Liking or disliking blacks had nothing to do with their reasons for wanting to own slaves. Liking or disliking blacks had nothing to do with the Union wanting to end slavery. Like I said, white Union soldiers were not going to war because they cared so much for black people. Our governments are not that compassionate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2012)

On Southerners of the era: as a black dude from Louisiana living in Texas, I think I can safely say that there were people back then who were not racist yet who fought for the Confederates.  However, beyond a personal display within one's home in honor of such service, I really can't get behind displaying the Stars & Bars.  I honestly think the Germans had the right idea of outlawing public display of the symbolism of Nazi Germany, though such laws would not be legal here in the USA.

On Northerners of the era: people forget that Lincoln was no real fan of black people himself- his primary interest was the USA as an ongoing concern, and he recognized the moral bankruptcy of "that Southern institution."  He had originally proposed to buy all the slaves in the South and send them to Africa (basically to Liberia), reasoning- rightly- that it would be cheaper than war.


----------



## Starman (Feb 18, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> Again, he's mistaking the south as being "racist" simply for owning slaves. Then he is relating racism with the flag that the south flew.
> 
> I don't understand why people like to believe the north was not racist just because they didn't own slaves. Blacks were not treated equally in the north. You can be racist without owning slaves. You can own slaves without being racist. If a person is unable to distinguish one from the other, then yes, he's going to label a confederate flag as a symbol of racism. Unfortunately, white supremacy groups can't distinguish one from the other. That still doesn't mean the flag was created to symbolize racism. Otherwise, every flag in the world would be a symbol of racism.
> 
> Think of it this way, calling the south racist for not wanting to give up their slaves is like calling any farmer today racist for not wanting to give up their tractors. Liking or disliking blacks had nothing to do with their reasons for wanting to own slaves. Liking or disliking blacks had nothing to do with the Union wanting to end slavery. Like I said, white Union soldiers were not going to war because they cared so much for black people. Our governments are not that compassionate.




I don't think anyone (here on this thread or in links) has said that you have to own slaves to be racist or that there was no racism in the North. It also seems rather disingenuous (and telling) that you make an analogy comparing people to tools. If you consider a person nothing more than a tool (which was a good chunk of Southern land-holders) than, of course, you're going to treat them as such. "Look, I like my tools and all and would rather someone didn't come take them away from me." That's understandable. But if you substitute "people" for "tools" you've got a slightly different situation on your hands. And, I will damn sure call anyone a racist who keeps slaves and gets upset when someone wants to free the slaves.


----------



## Starman (Feb 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> On Northerners of the era: people forget that Lincoln was no real fan of black people himself- his primary interest was the USA as an ongoing concern, and he recognized the moral bankruptcy of "that Southern institution."  He had originally proposed to buy all the slaves in the South and send them to Africa (basically to Liberia), reasoning- rightly- that it would be cheaper than war.




Right. I'm not going to make the ludicrous argument that all of the Northerners were bastions of moral virtue. That doesn't change the fact that the Confederate Flag has come to represent something, something that isn't very good at all. Maybe that's a tragedy or something, but that's the way it is.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 18, 2012)

Starman said:


> I'm really trying not to Godwin the thread, but symbols have power and other movements have used symbols that have taken on a certain meaning and I don't think that most people would take to kindly to people using that symbol for something and saying, "Oh, but I'm not like those other people that used this symbol."




You may not be trying to Godwin the thread, but you are approaching it.

You have to understand that, yes, symbols are powerful, but they do not mean the same thing to all people.  Elf Witch's point about the Christian Cross is an excellent one.  Some people find the cross a symbol of oppression against non-Christians, others see in it their own racist views, and others see it as a symbol of peace and love.  It is a very powerful symbol that represents different things to different people.  True, the majority of folks see the cross as a good symbol . . . but are we a culture founded on majority rule with minority rights?  Should we ban the cross because some are truly and rightfully offended by it?

Likewise, the Confederate Flag is seen by many (perhaps a majority) as a symbol of racism.  But to others, especially those of the South, it is not a racist symbol at all, but one of rebellion against unjust authority.  Who are you to say that those who fly the Confederate Flag are racists, even if they don't realize it themselves?  Should we ban or denigrate those who proudly see this symbol as a positive thing?

Personally, the Confederate Flag makes me feel ooky.  I would never display it, and anyone I met who proudly did would probably not make it on my "friends list".  But I wouldn't assume they were wrong, or racist, to venerate that symbol.


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 18, 2012)

Starman said:


> But if you substitute "people" for "tools" you've got a slightly different situation on your hands.



Slaves were not considered "people" during that era. "People" had rights, slaves did not. And I'm not just saying that to make a point. Slaves really were not legally identified as a "person". So yes, they were tools. And yes, I agree, when you substitute people for tools it does change things. But that isn't what the Civil War was about.



> And, I will damn sure call anyone a racist who keeps slaves and gets upset when someone wants to free the slaves.




So would any other compassionate person alive today. The reason you *might* think like that is because slavery is illegal today. Who knows what we'd think if it wasn't (we'd like to believe we would still think the same). Someone else said it earlier in this thread; to understand what the war was about, you have to think past our modern day thinking and put yourself in that time period. People thought much differently then.


----------



## Starman (Feb 18, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> Slaves were not considered "people" during that era. "People" had rights, slaves did not. And I'm not just saying that to make a point. Slaves really were not legally identified as a "person". So yes, they were tools. And yes, I agree, when you substitute people for tools it does change things. But that isn't what the Civil War was about.




They were 3/5 of a person. 



Oryan77 said:


> So would any other compassionate person alive today. The reason you *might* think like that is because slavery is illegal today. Who knows what we'd think if it wasn't (we'd like to believe we would still think the same). Someone else said it earlier in this thread; to understand what the war was about, you have to think past our modern day thinking and put yourself in that time period. People thought much differently then.




How does that excuse people flying the Confederate flag _today_?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 18, 2012)

The original Confederate flag ("Stars and Bars") was a 5 star version of this flag (note more stars = more confederate states):







The flag was changed to incorporate the Confederate battle standard because of one reason:  "Bull Run was confusing... every flag looked the same!"






Unfortunately, too many people thought the flag was a sign of surrender ("White flags = truce!) so they added red to it because the south was not going to capitulate, they were out for blood.






Let's look at the battle standard on that flag...

The red on the flag wasn't because "they were a nation that was built on the blood of the slaves."  It was because Red = Strength.  It symbolized currage, blood, aggression. You know they things you want to have your army think about as they slaughter the enemy.  Blue represented loyalty and some other virtues that were also used on the Union Flag.  So basically yeah, they used the same ideas that went into making the union flag.

The idea of using a blue cross on the flag was based on several flags.  Like South Carolina's Succession flag, and Alabama's flag... 










It should be noted that originally the design of the rebel battle standard was going to be a Saint George cross based design akin to that South Caroline flag.  Unfortunately, or fortunately, a prominent southern jew told the designer that would be offensive to Jews, and no southern jew in their right mind would march to war under a cross banner (you know, because of the crusades).  However, since the Saint Andrew's cross looked like an "X" they figured it was alright.

(Some say it was an also meant as insult to the union because it was reminiscent of the flags flown by the English, but let's not go there.  )[sblock=I went there]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







Note, the reversed colors!
[/sblock]


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 18, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> Personally, the Confederate Flag makes me feel ooky.  I would never display it, and anyone I met who proudly did would probably not make it on my "friends list".  But I wouldn't assume they were wrong, or racist, to venerate that symbol.




Judging a guy cause he has an "ooky" flag hanging up is no different than saying you wouldn't be friends with a guy that has a D&D poster on his wall because it represents devil worshiping.

My entire family is from the south and I'm very proud of it. I'm white and I'm married to an Afghan woman. I converted to Islam to marry her. We live in the San Fransisco Bay Area surrounded by all kinds of races. My wife is proud of the fact that I'm from the south. She bought a confederate flag when we were in TN visiting family. Out of respect to others (because most people are just misinformed and easily influenced into thinking it represents something that it doesn't) we hang it in our bedroom rather than outside or in the family room. 

I'd like to think I'm not a racist and I'd be pissed if someone accused me to be.


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 18, 2012)

Starman said:


> They were 3/5 of a person.



Which means they were not *a* person.



> How does that excuse people flying the Confederate flag _today_?




Well I've already explained it in length. If you are so set on wanting to make it a racist symbol, then I can't stop you. But it's not a racist symbol, regardless of what misinformed people use it for or because you saw a skinhead waving it around. The confederates were not fighting their own brothers in the Civil War because they hated black people. The war was not fought to preserve the right to be racists.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

Starman said:


> Biased? How?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Biased in the fact that he often sees racism when in fact things are not racist. I think he lets his emotions color things. 

Again it seems to be that you really didn't learn your American history all you can see is slavery is bad so the south fighting to be allowed to self determine their fate is also bad. It is a very simplistic way of looking at history. 

Do you understand that just freeing the slaves would have hurt the southern economy very badly and that a lot of the people calling for the end of it were not doing it out of the nobility of their hearts but because they wanted a economic advantage. 

As Oryan pointed out most of the men who fought for the north were not doing it to free slaves but to keep the US together.

All lot of Southerners who fought for the south did not own slaves my great grandfather and his family fought for what they viewed as their homeland if the southern economy was destroyed so would his family and their business. In his journal he talks about listening to his father and his father's friends talking late into the night about what would happen if the slaves were freed.  How if the wealthy plantations folded then so would all the other businesses. 

There are a lot of symbols that people react badly to I am Wiccan and so many Christians view the pentagram as a sign of evil and of Satan but that is not what it represented to me.

The burning cross is a huge symbol of hate but a cross is also a symbol for millions of Christians as a sign of Gods love. 

I personally find the black panther fist symbol to be one of racism. A lot of the panthers preached hate and violence against whites. But I don't think every black person who wears it or displays it is racist.

Like I said to a lot of Southerners especially in the 60s and 70s the flag had nothing  to do with racism but represented rebellion against Washington and the Vietnam War. There was a reason the Dukes of Hazzard car had the flag painted on top because they were good ole boys doing the best they can against the man. Racism was never ever part of that show.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> On Southerners of the era: as a black dude from Louisiana living in Texas, I think I can safely say that there were people back then who were not racist yet who fought for the Confederates.  However, beyond a personal display within one's home in honor of such service, I really can't get behind displaying the Stars & Bars.  I honestly think the Germans had the right idea of outlawing public display of the symbolism of Nazi Germany, though such laws would not be legal here in the USA.
> 
> On Northerners of the era: people forget that Lincoln was no real fan of black people himself- his primary interest was the USA as an ongoing concern, and he recognized the moral bankruptcy of "that Southern institution."  He had originally proposed to buy all the slaves in the South and send them to Africa (basically to Liberia), reasoning- rightly- that it would be cheaper than war.




And Germany has had issues to this day with the Nazis. I think making something illegal like they did gives it a kind of romantic mysterious feel especially to young people who are rebelling at everything because well that is what kids do.

I don't fly my flag because it is to fragile but I do have a battle flag pin I wear on my cowboy hat. It was a gift from a fellow rodeo clown who happened to be black. He knew I liked unicorns and this one has the flag over its back.  

These last two points are not directed at what you said Danny they just occurred to me as I was answering you.

The reason the Klan burned crosses was a sign of Christian might. But no one goes around claiming all Christians are racist.

I would like to point out that US Cavalry carrying the American flag did some horrible things to Native Americans under that flag yet I don't see anyone accusing Americans who fly it as supporting genocide against an indigenous people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> And Germany has had issues to this day with the Nazis.




True...but even so, there aren't many debates over the intent of those flying the Swastica or flashing SS regalia.

The banning of the symbology does not make the problem go away, but it does place limits on how often you'll have to face it.  Closed sewers are easier to live with than open ones.



> I would like to point out that US Cavalry carrying the American flag did some horrible things to Native Americans under that flag yet I don't see anyone accusing Americans who fly it as supporting genocide against an indigenous people.



True again, but that is because there aren't many hate groups going around today denegrating Native Americans under the aegis of the Stars & Stripes.  (Those groups tend to gravitate towards Nazi & Confedeate symbols.) IOW, it's not the past injustices, but the modern usage.

With the Confederate Battle Flag, despite those who served under it with honor, the symbol quickly became nearly completely co-opted by the racist sub-element for it's own purposes, and has been one of the main uses since the late 1800s.

Let me ask this: if there was a word with a nonracist and a racist meaning in modern language- both well known- how long would you use the word before tiring of dealing with the negative repercussions like having to explain which way you meant it?  Or not being given a chance to do so before having people think you were a racist?


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True...but even so, there aren't many debates over the intent of those flying the Swastica or flashing SS regalia.
> 
> The banning of the symbology does not make the problem go away, but it does place limits on how often you'll have to face it.
> 
> ...




Except the Nazi movement has not gone away and evidence shows it is growing in strength among young Germans and Austrians.

I think it is much safer to have things out in the open and not kept in secret.

I lived near the Seminole Indian Reservation when I was a teen and the kids went to my high school and a lot of them refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and viewed the flag as a symbol of oppression. 

The American Indian Movement of the 60s and 70s viewed the flag and the way that history was being taught as discrimination against the Native Americans, I remember reading a speech one of the founders of AIM made about how flying the American flag was condoning the slaughter and mistreatment of the Native people. 

Talk to the Native Americans who live on the Reservations of what it was like and how they were treated by white townsfolk during the 50s and 60s in this country it just has not gotten the same coverage as what the Civil Right movement did. A lot of white owned business refused to allow them to shop or eat at their restaurants. 

I know Jews, Pagans and Muslims who view the cross a symbol of hate and discrimination look at the horrible Westboro Church and what they have done with the symbol. 

I also feel that instead of giving into hate take back the symbols that have been recruited for symbols of hate. The swastika was not a symbol that Nazis made they stole it originally it was an ancient Sanskrit symbol.  

It depends on the word and what it means I am stubborn and I don't give into what I see as stupid political correctness. And if someone wants to judge me as racist based on my use of a word well my attitude is basically screw them. Just like my attitude with people who have judged me as racist because I own an authentic battle flag. I have been told I should destroy what is a piece of history along with the Confederate money I own and my great grandfather's cap. 

Those items are a part of my family history and they are apart of American history. I refuse to destroy them because some idiotic bigots took the symbol and used it to terrorize blacks, Jews and Catholics.  

The Civil War is part of our history and making it illegal to own a Confederate flag or not allow it to be flown over a Civil War graveyard or at a museum about the Civil War is just plain out right ignorance.  

We have come so far since those days. A Black man is in the White House we have black congressman and Governors. Is racism dead no it is not  but we have come a long way since the 1960s. I am certainly not going to judge anyone who has Confederate flag or any Confederate memorabilia as being racist.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2012)

> Except the Nazi movement has not gone away and evidence shows it is growing in strength among young Germans and Austrians.




Neo-Nazism is on the rise in Russia as well.

And membership of young people in white power groups is on the rise in the USA.  Recruitment curremtly has almost no relationship with the public display of the symbols thanks to the Internet, and overall, has a stronger correlation with a country's economic conditions.  

And that being the case, I'd rather not have symbols with such unfortunate connotations on public display.


> I lived near the Seminole Indian Reservation when I was a teen and the kids went to my high school and a lot of them refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and viewed the flag as a symbol of oppression.
> 
> The American Indian Movement of the 60s and 70s viewed the flag and the way that history was being taught as discrimination against the Native Americans, I remember reading a speech one of the founders of AIM made about how flying the American flag was condoning the slaughter and mistreatment of the Native people.
> 
> Talk to the Native Americans who live on the Reservations of what it was like and how they were treated by white townsfolk during the 50s and 60s in this country it just has not gotten the same coverage as what the Civil Right movement did. A lot of white owned business refused to allow them to shop or eat at their restaurants.




I'm part Choctaw*, and I _don't _ view the American flag as a symbol of oppression.  I'm not saying evil wasn't done under its unfurled majesty, and yes, the Native American experience in some parts of this country differed little in substance from the plight of Southern blacks.

But like I said, there are no recognized hate groups (AFAIK) that use it as one of its major organizational symbols.



> I know Jews, Pagans and Muslims who view the cross a symbol of hate and discrimination look at the horrible Westboro Church and what they have done with the symbol.



Many Christians loathe the Westboro church as well...though since the cross IS a reminder of a particularly gruesome execution method, so its message is inherently complex.



> I also feel that instead of giving into hate take back the symbols that have been recruited for symbols of hate. The swastika was not a symbol that Nazis made they stole it originally it was an ancient Sanskrit symbol.



The swastika- left or right handed- shows up in a great many cultures' symbology, including some Native American ones.  However, my understanding of the German laws is that ithey do not ban the display of all swastikas, just those with overtly Nazi connections- the RWB color scheme, paired with the lightning bolt SS, etc.

As for the rehabilitation of symbols & words: for some, it's just not worth it.  They should just be left on the ash-heap of history, or at the very least, kept out of the general public.  Even for compositions I enjoy, I hate it when black artists use the N-word in their lyrics as a term of endearment.





* And a bunch of other stuff besides.  Basically, if you know an ethnic slur, I'm entitled to be offended by it.


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 18, 2012)

It is also highly unfair to compare Nazi anything to the Confederacy. It was two completely different agendas. Of course people are going to claim it is similar because they keep relating the ownership of slaves to being racist (therefor evil).

The south wasn't going to war to exterminate blacks. The south wasn't marching into territories to take over land. The south wasn't trying to take power from the north. The south was not fighting out of hatred towards anyone. You can't say the same about the Nazis.

The only reason the confederate flag has a bad rep is because ignorant people keep distorting the truth and comparing the south to Nazi Germany. They feel they can do that since the south lost (meaning, since they owned slaves and lost the war, that means they were the bad guys).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2012)

> The south wasn't marching into territories to take over land. The south wasn't trying to take power from the north.



Actually, they had plans of doing just that, but did not have the military might to succeed.  The Southern Ultimatums made that perfectly clear (and, FWIW, tainted the states rights argument even further).



> The only reason the confederate flag has a bad rep is because ignorant people keep distorting the truth and comparing the south to Nazi Germany.




No, there are several reasons, but the biggest is that the confederate flag has a bad rep because ignorant people keep distorting the truth and using the symbols of the Confederacy as the symbols of their hate groups alongside the symbols of the Nazis...

If you could get the racists to change their symbology, the CBF _might_ have a chance of being redeemed.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 18, 2012)

Personally I am against creating ash heaps for words, symbols, and phrases which had negative historical connotations, may offend, or may make people feel bad orr uncomfortable.

The reason is simple: Symbols and words represent knowledge and to deny the existance of those things that represent negatve aspects of culture, society, or history just so that you could feel better about yourself will only lead to humanity repeating those mistakes and causing further harm in the future.

Also, remember that some of those "shame" words have other meanings and were coopted or were corrupted.  For instance, the "n world" that ends o is the spanish word for black.   So imagine how it made me feel back in the mid 80s when I didn't think about race (I colored everyone "flesh" in my K-3rd grade crayon based artwork because light pink skin was easier to draw faces on with pencil), and was told that "negro*" was an evil word and that I shouldnt ever draw people who weren't white as having light pink skin even though artistically it worked better and I didnt think about race and I knew at the time that we all were basically the same.  (Sadly, those teachers killed that idealistic notion by saying race matters.)

* It should be noted, for those who never heard some of my child hood stories in the HIVE that my teachers brainwashed me to not speaking spanish becuase the slight lisp I spoke with during grade school was "because I spoke spanish" and because "No one at this school speaks spanish except your family so stop speaking it because we won't understand you." 

 -Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2012)

> Personally I am against creating ash heaps for words, symbols, and phrases which had negative historical connotations, may offend, or may make people feel bad orr uncomfortable.




There's a big gap between not educating folks about words & symbols with negative connotations, and not being a fan of their continued use or attempts at their rehabilitation.  I support the latter, but believe strongly that education about those symbols & their context is crucial.  George Santayana's quote rings as true now as ever...as do the lessons in historical linguistics given us by George Orwell.

Ideally, we'd get to a point when the only time people had to see those things in the context of hate would be in a history class, not the 5PM news.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 18, 2012)

A couple of thoughts that may also be of interest (since I didn't read the entire thread, they may have been mentioned already.)

There were more agendas than just the obvious ones.

The north wanted to subjugate the south with industrialization. In other words, the north were making tractors and many other kinds of agricultural equipment to reinvent agricultural science. The south relying on slaves really weren't as effective of farmers, as could be done with modern farm machinery. The civil war, by the north, was meant to destroy the south's current agricultural capability (slaves) and force the south to buy northern made farm equipment.

The south wanted to not only secede from the Union, but through the Golden Circle, wanted to make the south own and control the eastern half of Mexico down to the Caribbean Sea, where the gulf of Mexico was the central area of trade for the south.

Slaves were the underlying issue, but a combination of States Rights vs. Federal control, subjugation of the south and destruction of their economic system (through the removal of slaves), forced purchase of modern farm equipment from the north - were all part of the big picture in the civil war.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 19, 2012)

We are just going to have agree to disagree on this Dannyalcatraz. 

I feel that doing it your way and allowing symbols to be corrupted is just letting the bad guys win.

I think in some ways we have gone overboard on things in this country. Nobody dares type out the N word even when it is relevant like in talking about its use in Mark Twain work. We have taken a racial slur and made it all mysterious and imo given it more power by doing this. It elevates it and gives it more power. 

A teacher in Chicago was suspended for five days for using it in his classroom after some kids were passing around rap lyrics with the word in it. He took the opportunity to teach about how some language has been used to demean people and sometimes those people take control over the word . 

His Principal walked in heard him say and suspended because the word is forbidden to be said because it is hate speech. 

Tennessee made talking about or using any words about homosexuality illegal in public classroom.

In a country where we believe in free speech this is an issue when we start penalizing people for using words even if it is not in a hate filled rant. 

In South Carolina back in the 40s I believe they started putting up metal signs with a Confederate flag on it and text to designate Civil War sites. This was not as a racist endeavor. The flag was used to differentiate those historical sites from the Revolutionary  war sites which I believe have the Continental flag on them. 

Near my Aunt's house is one it says this was the site where the union troops fired their cannons on the capital across the river. The Capital building itself which was under construction at time has several of these signs they even have places where the cannon balls hit marked. They left them and never repaired them.

Standing and reading those signs brings history alive at least it does to me. 

In the last few years there has been a push to get rid of them because the Confederate flag is offensive to some people. The state has said that they simply don't have the funds to pay for this. Those signs were made of an expensive metal and made to withstand the elements replacing them would cost a fortune. So then if they can't be replaced the group just wants them gone. 

This is where I start to have an issue that to not offend people we just white wash over history because in a way that is what these people seem to want.

Tomorrow is the anniversary of executive order 9066 the order that gave the US military the right to round up and detain Japaneses Americans. But I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of Americans don't even know it nor was it in their history books it was not in mine. I only learned about because of being a Trekkie and talking to George Takei whose family was sent to one. 

People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it


----------



## Starman (Feb 19, 2012)

There's a difference between using the Confederate flag in history books and flying it at courthouses.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 19, 2012)

Starman said:


> There's a difference between using the Confederate flag in history books and flying it at courthouses.




Which I said way back at the start of this.

Though my reason maybe different than yours. I don't think it belongs flying on Government buildings not because of racism or because it offends some people but because it represent sedition. 

Flying the Confederate flag like that would be the same imo as flying a British Flag at the White House.


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 19, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, there are several reasons, but the biggest is that the confederate flag has a bad rep because ignorant people keep distorting the truth and using the symbols of the Confederacy as the symbols of their hate groups alongside the symbols of the Nazis...



I didn't actually mean the _only_ reason. But yes, I agree with you 100%.



Elf Witch said:


> Flying the Confederate flag like that would be the same imo as flying a British Flag at the White House.



I also agree with this 100%. It's a good example.


----------



## nightwind1 (Feb 19, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> What really irks me is how people nowadays see a confederate flag as a symbol of racism. It is not. It's a symbol of the south and nothing more.



If it is flown today, it IS a symbol of racism. It may not have been THEN, but definitely TODAY it is. There is simply NO other reason to display it. The South LOST, so there is NO reason to fly the flag of the losing side. We are ALL the United States now.


----------



## Wycen (Feb 19, 2012)

There is some wrong information in this thread, but explaining it will just make the thread longer and provoke more "if, and's, or but's" so I shall pretend I've forgotten the American Historical Association's Statement of Standards of Professional Conduct and just say "it is Dundracon this weekend, anybody going?"


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 19, 2012)

nightwind1 said:


> If it is flown today, it IS a symbol of racism. It may not have been THEN, but definitely TODAY it is. There is simply NO other reason to display it. The South LOST, so there is NO reason to fly the flag of the losing side. We are ALL the United States now.




There is a huge difference in saying the flag should not be flown because the south lost and we are in the United States and then saying flying it equates racism.

There are a lot of reasons to display one. You could choose to display it as part of your heritage,  or as a statement against  what some people see as an over reaching federal government which was one of the reasons the Allman Brothers used it on an album cover. Some people like it because it is symbol of rebellion, And finally some people unfortunately use it as a racist statement.  

My neighbor flies an Irish flag every day under his American flag. I see various flags from different South American countries on dashboards and in windows in my neighborhood. I doubt that racism is the primary reason those people do it. It is to keep them connected to their heritage.

You may not agree that it should ever be flown or displayed`but I think you are wrong to just assume anyone who does it is racist.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 19, 2012)

nightwind1 said:


> If it is flown today, it IS a symbol of racism. It may not have been THEN, but definitely TODAY it is. There is simply NO other reason to display it. The South LOST, so there is NO reason to fly the flag of the losing side. We are ALL the United States now.




I'm guessing you're not from the South?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm guessing you're not from the South?




_I_ am, and I don't have much issue with that statement.

(To clarify- I'm 100% cool with re-enactors, historical displays & lessons.  I judge private displays- guitars, belt-buckles, etc.- on a case by case basis.  I am not cool with ANY government issued/approved displays- flying it or flags incorporating it over gov't buildings, recreation areas, and the like; state issued license plates, and so forth, unless they fall into the first category.)


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 19, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True...but even so, there aren't many debates over the intent of those flying the Swastica or flashing SS regalia.




To be fair, the swastika was in use long before the nazis perverted its meaning.

As for the confederate flag, around my part of NC flying such a flag is little different than flying a NASCAR flag.


----------



## jonesy (Feb 19, 2012)

Aeolius said:


> To be fair, the swastika was in use long before the nazis perverted its meaning.



And people keep talking like it's thousand years ago or something. If you go to a Hindu temple in Germany today you'll find them adorned with swastikas. Because it's their symbol and they are exempt from the ban by religious reasons. It's a peace symbol.

The Navajo have the Whirling Log. A symbol of healing.

I own a medal of honor from my great-grandfather from the time of our civil war. It has a Freedom Cross on it. Same damn symbol.

The Finnish air force used a Von Rosen cross. And where did Von Rosen get it from? The Viking Fylfot. As a symbol of good luck.

Hitler was a fckin ahole. That's all.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 19, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _I_ am, and I don't have much issue with that statement.
> 
> (To clarify- I'm 100% cool with re-enactors, historical displays & lessons.  I judge private displays- guitars, belt-buckles, etc.- on a case by case basis.  I am not cool with ANY government issued/approved displays- flying it or flags incorporating it over gov't buildings, recreation areas, and the like; state issued license plates, and so forth, unless they fall into the first category.)




I am not cool with the guy's statement. But I agree with your clarification 100%.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 22, 2012)

Yay! History!  My favorite subject...  But why did it have to be the Civil War? 

Okay, first off, I love the period of history simply because it is so varied and diverse in opinion, even then.  Some background.
Did anyone here know that Illinois, a northern state and Lincoln's home before he entered the presidency had a Slave Clause and that we in Southern Illinois could own slaves IF the job was deemed to be essential to the survival of the region, state, nation and workers could not be found to fill those positions?
There was/is a very famous house known as "The Slave House" where slaves were legally kept to work in the local salt mines.  The controversy surrounding it, they were a stop on the underground railroad heading south. (IOW - the one where freed/runaway slaves and freeborn blacks were captured and sent back.)

There is some conjecture as to whether Lincoln was actually against slavery as his official platform was never about abolitionist policies.  He hated slavery, but was more concerned with preserving the Union, and if it meant slavery, he was for it.   Read the transcripts of the Lincoln/Douglas debates in Southern Illinois and you find the whole approach to debating in this area did NOT match his debating in Central and Northern Illinois which were staunchly abolitionist.  We have copies in several of the historical societies and in the county records hall here in Union County.

There are at least 250 known SI residents that fought on the side of the South during the war. (Some reports have Jesse James living in Illinois vice Kentucky when he joined the Southern Army.)  BTW I'm related to him (unfortunately). (Illinois is the only "non-slave owning" state in the Union to have an entire regiment in the Southern army.  Kentucky and Maryland the other states to have regiments on both sides of the conflict were both slave states (and stars 12 & 13 on the confederate flag).

While Slavery was definitely a factor for most Southern states, it wasn't for all of them.  While Louisiana did allow slave owners, their primary reason was taxation and tariffs on trade up and down the Mississippi river. (They didn't feel that the U.S. tariffs garnered enough revenue for the State and wanted to impose local tariffs that were shot down by government officials.)

The issue of "State's Rights" is an interesting one.  A majority of the Army of Virginia was made up of non-slave owning poor rural farmers, and homesteaders.  However, even they claimed that "their rights" were being violated.  The reason, Southern politicians, almost exclusively wealthy slave owners were whipping them into a frenzy (sorry about the poor choice of analogies here but I couldn't think of another.).  Most importantly, they were speaking of the ability of a small farmer to gain more land and therefore become a rich land owner (who of course would in turn have the money to then purchase slaves.)  But if you look at from their point of view, it's like telling a soon to be college graduate student that their Master's/Doctorate degree is now only good enough for employment at McDonald's.  There is now no way for them to ever get out of the hole.  Not saying it's right or wrong, but if you were faced with the option of staying poor because the "government" said you _can't _ever be rich because it's against the law, you'd probably fight too.

So the statement about was the war about slavery..."yes, sort of, maybe" is probably a lot closer than a straight Yes or No - like a lot of things in history it isn't "completely" Black or White (like what I did there?) but a subtle shade of gray.  There is an old axiom, "History is written by the winners" (because the losers are rarely still around).

As for the "Stars & Bars", they figure very prominently in this area of the country, lots of rednecks, but it has little to do with the Civil War and more about the spirit of rebellion and freedom.  As to it's use, as a part of a State Flag, nix it, as part of history, you better believe it needs to be around.

The problem with flags, any flag can be used to inspire hate.  The S&B is used by racial hate groups, but so is the Christian flag (White field, Blue union with a red cross affixed.) and no one bats an eye because (at least in my neck of the woods) that one flies in every church, and there are a lot of churches in this area. (The KKK and the World Church of the Creator are both self-proclaimed "Christian Religious Organizations")

Honestly, I could probably inspire a racial hate group with a Kentucky Fried Chicken flag if I tried hard enough, so I tend to tread lightly around talks of flags as symbols of hate.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 22, 2012)

Thunderfoot said:


> There is some conjecture as to whether Lincoln was actually against slavery as his official platform was never about abolitionist policies. He hated slavery, but was more concerned with preserving the Union, and if it meant slavery, he was for it. Read the transcripts of the Lincoln/Douglas debates in Southern Illinois and you find the whole approach to debating in this area did NOT match his debating in Central and Northern Illinois which were staunchly abolitionist. We have copies in several of the historical societies and in the county records hall here in Union County.




I'm in Ottawa, Illinois the site of the first Lincoln/Douglas Debate, and the only debate site, that Lincoln lost the debate. Though what he learned of Douglas's platform at that first debate, led him to a change in his own platform, that eventually led him to Presidency.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 23, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> I'm in Ottawa, Illinois the site of the first Lincoln/Douglas Debate, and the only debate site, that Lincoln lost the debate. Though what he learned of Douglas's platform at that first debate, led him to a change in his own platform, that eventually led him to Presidency.



Yep, Douglas was looking good after that... but not for long.


----------



## Chairman7w (Feb 25, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I have a question if you had family who served with Custer would you be ashamed? Even knowing some of the horrible abuses of innocent life that the US Army did in breaking the will of the plains Indians?
> 
> Are you ashamed that your own country just 50 years ago put your fellow country men in interment camps just because they were of Japanese ancestry?




The answer to both of those questions for me is Yes.  

Custer Question:  I think it's a point of shame for all Americans, the way our country treated Indians.  No real debate there.

Japanese Internment:  I AM ashamed over the actions of my country to put Japanese American citizens in Internment Camps.  This country SHOULD be ashamed of that.




Elf Witch said:


> I am only ashamed for my actions.




Really?  I don't get that.  I would be ashamed if my son were a dirtbag thief.  Or if my daughter was a racist slut.  (I don't have a daughter, just sayin).  If you only feel shame for your OWN self, well... okay.

That said, good post and I understand a lot of what you're saying, you make very good points.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 25, 2012)

Chairman7w said:


> The answer to both of those questions for me is Yes.
> 
> Custer Question:  I think it's a point of shame for all Americans, the way our country treated Indians.  No real debate there.
> 
> ...




It is kind of complicated how I feel about things in the past. I can see that they were wrong and  feel disgust that they happened.  But I don't feel shame because I was not alive and there was no way for me to have any ability to effect what happened or even speak out while it was happening.

Now things that happen now is different I can be disgusted at my fellow Americans for things they have done and if I just sit back and do nothing about something I find wrong then I feel personal shame. 

I am mother and when my son was a teen he went through a period of acting out even breaking the law. I was angry at him because he had been raised better. But I didn't feel personal shame. Shame is a negative emotion and it means to feel guilty , to feel dishonest. At least that is how I take the meaning of the word. His acting out was not a reflection on how I raised him. He was acting out because he was filled with hurt, anger and suffering from PTSD from being kidnapped when he was eight. All I could do was get him help , stand by him while he dealt with the consequences of his actions. In the end things turned out okay and he grew up to deal with his demons and become a wonderful human being.

Unless you raised your kids badly and didn't teach them right from wrong  once they become teens and adults some of their behavior is on them not you. You can be disgusted and disappointed with their behavior but feeling guilty and shameful is counter productive. It is like blaming yourself and asking where did I go wrong. Sometimes you didn't do anything wrong.


I spent a lot of time getting therapy on this learning to deal with the guilt and the lesson I learned was that we can't control everything that happens in life and that guilt and shame are useless emotions that prey on you preventing you from moving forward. There is a big difference between acknowledging you did something wrong and be truly sorry and wallowing in guilt and shame, Which usually moves into self pity.


I take personal responsibility for my actions but I refuse to feel guilty or like I lack honor because of someone else actions. 

I don't know if this makes any sense to you.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 25, 2012)

Sounds to me like you came out the right side of the wrong tunnel.  Glad to hear you made it through. 

Part of history is that it is easy to apply modern concepts to historical events and judge them on their obvious faults.  But, those obvious faults are rarely (if ever) obvious at the time history is being made.

Custer for example was:
(Then) Slaughtered by savages in an ambush while on patrol.
(Now) Avenged by Native Americans for the atrocities of Wounded Knee.
The events never changed but the perception did.  It doesn't make the event right or wrong per se, just an event.  

That's why history in the US is taught incorrectly in my opinion.  History is about people and their stories, not dates and events.  The events are merely vehicles and the dates are strictly time keeping devices.  The people involved and the stories they convey, shaped by their thoughts are where the tapestries of history are truly woven.  

Ask most people when the US was created and they will say July 4th 1776 - which is patently incorrect.  The Declaration of Independence was signed on that day, but the battles for revolution were already underway, the continental Army was already established (June 14, 1775) and the post war government was created under The Articles of Confederation. (the first "constitution" of the US that wasn't worth the paper it was written on.)

The US as we know it wasn't founded until 1787 (the final draft of the Constitution), 1788 (the ratification of the Constitution (2/3 of the states signed)) or 1790 (Rhode Island - the 13th and final state to ratify the Constitution.) depending upon how you wish to spin it.   

So I'll reiterate my earlier statement "any historical arguments are not black or white but subtle and numerous shades of gray."


----------



## billd91 (Feb 25, 2012)

Aeolius said:


> As for the confederate flag, around my part of NC flying such a flag is little different than flying a NASCAR flag.




It may be used that often, but I certainly see the uses differently. Flying a sports fan flag is different from flying the flag of a defeated and disgraced political entity. Whether or not the motivation for flying the Confederate flag is overtly racist (and I think government buildings doing so clearly is), I can't separate any motivation from wanting to be, fundamentally, a punk on the issue. And given the level of destruction inflicted by the war the secession and Confederacy caused, I find that to be in terrible taste and an insult to the hundreds of thousands of casualties inflicted.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 25, 2012)

billd91 said:


> ... I can't separate any motivation from wanting to be, fundamentally, a punk on the issue.



   Like the default answer to "The South's gonna do it again!" is "Do what? Lose?"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 25, 2012)

> Whether or not the motivation for flying the Confederate flag is overtly racist (and I think government buildings doing so clearly is)




Agreed.  Don't incorporate CW elements into state flags: use your Pre-War state flags or find a new design.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 26, 2012)

billd91 said:


> It may be used that often, but I certainly see the uses differently. Flying a sports fan flag is different from flying the flag of a defeated and disgraced political entity. <SNIP>



Nah, like I said, there are tons of folks in my area that also fly rebel flags... and that's the difference, you see the flag as a symbol of the confederacy (BTW the typical "Confederate flag" was actually one of about 6 flags used and the one that is most famous is actually the naval jack.) and those that fly it without racist intent see it as a symbol of the spirit of rebellion.  One could make an argument that you are the one that is narrow minded in this situation (I'm not BTW, just using this as an example of spin and POV).

I find there are better things in life to worry about; most PC issues to me are a waste of time and proof that people have too much time on their hands.  Otherwise, we would be working toward fixing real issues instead of perceived ones, but since this is starting to border on verbotten territory, I'll back off here.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 26, 2012)

Thunderfoot said:


> Sounds to me like you came out the right side of the wrong tunnel.  Glad to hear you made it through.
> 
> Part of history is that it is easy to apply modern concepts to historical events and judge them on their obvious faults.  But, those obvious faults are rarely (if ever) obvious at the time history is being made.
> 
> ...




My son is going to be 34 so it has been 26 years since the kidnapping and 19 since the issues of hos acting out. So for me it is far in the past. But looking back I did wonder if we were ever going to get through it. 

Even if your teen is not acting out those years an be tough.

I had a history teacher in seventh grade instill the love of history in me. He didn't teach dates he taught why things happened and really got into the life styles and the culture of the people living in that time. He was not boring.

The thing about Custer that not so many people  know is that he had pissed off several of the other Commanders and because of that they may not have moved as quickly as they could have to help him. 

I audited an American History class back in 2004 for fun. The teacher just happened to be from Britain. And he brought up some interesting points of things from the British POV. Some of the younger students were absolutely outraged over this. They could not wrap their minds around the fact that in a war sometimes both sides are the good guys.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 27, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> My son is going to be 34 so it has been 26 years since the kidnapping and 19 since the issues of hos acting out. So for me it is far in the past. But looking back I did wonder if we were ever going to get through it.
> 
> Even if your teen is not acting out those years an be tough.
> 
> ...



My oldest is 24 - so, I get it.   Yeah we had a history instructor in college that made us watch a tape where they interviewed German Nazis party supporters discussing pre-WWII (32-38) Germany and why following Hitler was so easy to do.  They were broke, hungry, and demoralized and when Hitler took over, they suddenly had jobs, vehicles, food and sense of purpose.  They didn't agree with his later tactics, but they never totally dropped a hammer on him either.  It was really a wake up call for POV and reality.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 27, 2012)

Thunderfoot said:


> My oldest is 24 - so, I get it.   Yeah we had a history instructor in college that made us watch a tape where they interviewed German Nazis party supporters discussing pre-WWII (32-38) Germany and why following Hitler was so easy to do.  They were broke, hungry, and demoralized and when Hitler took over, they suddenly had jobs, vehicles, food and sense of purpose.  They didn't agree with his later tactics, but they never totally dropped a hammer on him either.  It was really a wake up call for POV and reality.




I saw something like that and it really made the Nazi's more human and really explained to me how someone like Hitler got into power. And it showed me why it happened and how what happened after WW1 help set up this situation. 

People forget that history is our story and that it involved people very much like us in a lot of ways. But for some reason a lot of teachers have a hard time getting that across. 

I saw something like this a few months ago. There was talk about opening the Everglades up for drilling and putting rigs off our west coast. I was so infuriated that the rest of the country felt they had the right to have a say on this when the consequences of it would be mainly effecting us Floridians. 

It helped me have an appreciation for the southerns position pre civil war. People who were not going to be effected by a major change having a say in it. I can understand why it would upset people.


----------



## Janx (Feb 27, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True again, but that is because there aren't many hate groups going around today denegrating Native Americans under the aegis of the Stars & Stripes.  (Those groups tend to gravitate towards Nazi & Confedeate symbols.) IOW, it's not the past injustices, but the modern usage.




Would it be mostly accurate (meaning not true for everybody, but applicable to a majority) that a Northerner or black person seeing a Confederate flag on a truck, government building or house is going to make them think "a racist put that there"  more often than not.

The person who put that flag there MIGHT not be racist.  But they sure are ignorant if they don't think others might not come to that conclusion because real racists have adopted the symbol for their own.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 27, 2012)

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the other that have been tried."  - Winston Churchill


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 27, 2012)

Janx said:


> Would it be mostly accurate (meaning not true for everybody, but applicable to a majority) that a Northerner or black person seeing a Confederate flag on a truck, government building or house is going to make them think "a racist put that there"  more often than not.
> 
> The person who put that flag there MIGHT not be racist.  But they sure are ignorant if they don't think others might not come to that conclusion because real racists have adopted the symbol for their own.



No, I live in Illinois - a northern state, home to Grant, Sherman and John A Logan, all Union Generals and of course Lincoln and I've said multiple times there are more rebel flags around here than you can shake a stick at. 

It really is a regional perception, I think. I wouldn't have ever thought a rebel flag in Maryland was anything but a racist symbol because the population at large was urban, of mixed races, and a largely economically prosperous group (even the poor folks make more than the rich folks around here on average), but here, it's so commonplace, a rural, mostly white and Hispanic racial mix and largely poor (in comparison to the national average) economic group , I would never associate it with racism, unless someone was spouting racist pap along with the display.  

POV folks, it's all about POV.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 27, 2012)

> Would it be mostly accurate (meaning not true for everybody, but applicable to a majority) that a Northerner or black person seeing a Confederate flag on a truck, government building or house is going to make them think "a racist put that there" more often than not.




I can't speak for Noetherners- _those_ people are crazy, so I can't say how they think- but I know of only a handful of American blacks who are not immediately put on guard when they see that flag.  Even among those who had ancestors who fought for the south, the CBF is rarely welcomed, rarely displayed.

There are exceptions: Black student hangs Confederate flag, sparks debate - New York Daily News


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 27, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can't speak for Noetherners- _those_ people are crazy, so I can't say how they think- but I know of only a handful of American blacks who are not immediately put on guard when they see that flag.  Even among those who had ancestors who fought for the south, the CBF is rarely welcomed, rarely displayed.
> 
> There are exceptions: Black student hangs Confederate flag, sparks debate - New York Daily News



Yep, I remember that - that was a weird one.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 27, 2012)

Janx said:


> Would it be mostly accurate (meaning not true for everybody, but applicable to a majority) that a Northerner or black person seeing a Confederate flag on a truck, government building or house is going to make them think "a racist put that there" more often than not.
> 
> The person who put that flag there MIGHT not be racist. But they sure are ignorant if they don't think others might not come to that conclusion because real racists have adopted the symbol for their own.




Well I'm a northerner and I don't think that.

If I see it in a public building or location, I think this must be a sight important during the civil war for the south - and nothing more.

Or, I think of "Dukes of Hazzard" - which to me is childish.

So while it has negative connotations to a degree, racism is not what comes to mind.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 27, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> Well I'm a northerner and I don't think that.
> 
> If I see it in a public building or location, I think this must be a sight important during the civil war for the south - and nothing more.
> 
> ...




I confess that I'm more likely to think "ignorant, redneck punk" than racist... though that's in part because they probably don't realize it might be off-putting to their black neighbors because of its racist connotations.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 27, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I confess that I'm more likely to think "ignorant, redneck punk" .




Yeah, this is pretty much where I'm at too. Though I couldn't think of a nice way to put it - so Duke's of Hazzard = ignorant redneck punk.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 27, 2012)

Watch that redneck comment city-slicker  

Talk about a term that has changed over the years - now meaning a little educated white trash individual
Original usage - anyone who worked doing outdoor manual labor for a living (usually farmers), owing to the usually sunburned/tan color of the back of their neck (ie red).  Related to the often racial inflammatory term "wet-back" which originally was due to the sweat stain on the shirts of Hispanic migrant workers caused by hard work in the fields and orchards farming (and the fact that their necks couldn't turn redder.).

So originally in casual conversation a discussion of rednecks and wet-backs referred to farmers of different racial origins.  It's amazing how time alters perception isn't it?  
And who says rural farm kids grow up to be ignorant and uneducated?


----------



## Chairman7w (Feb 28, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I take personal responsibility for my actions but I refuse to feel guilty or like I lack honor because of someone else actions.
> 
> I don't know if this makes any sense to you.




Good stuff here.  I get ya Elf Witch!

(raises his drink to toast)


----------



## Umbran (Feb 28, 2012)

Thunderfoot said:


> Related to the often racial inflammatory term "wet-back" which originally was due to




That term has multiple origins - the other major one is from having gotten wet swimming across the Rio Grande to get into the USA.



billd91 said:


> I confess that I'm more likely to think "ignorant, redneck punk" than racist... though that's in part because they probably don't realize it might be off-putting to their black neighbors because of its racist connotations.




Actually, they're punks because they know darned well about the racist connotations, and they want to cheese people off with it.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 28, 2012)

Umbran said:


> That term has multiple origins - the other major one is from having gotten wet swimming across the Rio Grande to get into the USA. <SNIP>



Yeah, I think a lot of those were created well after the term was in use. (and most of them are very racially motivated.)  But, who can really say?

Anyway, there needs to be more blacks, reds, and browns playing and publishing RPGs.  That way, a lot of this stuff would go away just because the right information would start surfacing.   I'm Thunderfoot, and I approve this message.

LOLZ


----------

