The Confederate Flag [Archive]

Mike B.

2nd July 2003, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Good question. My guess is, people fly the battle flag because it represents rebellion. Perhaps more than the national flag? I really dont know. I dont fly the flag personally, but I think it's pathetic (and funny) that it has turned into such a touchy issue by the PC thugs. (see frank's kneejerk post)

And thats the question;

Why is it such a touchy political issue?

I don't know, from statements like this from the man that wrote the Confederate Constitution, their Vice-President, Alexander Stephens:

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

UnrepentantSinner

2nd July 2003, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
I know what you mean...

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/06/16/iran.us.protests/vert.student.protest.ap.jpg

We're with you Brother!

Ian Osborne

2nd July 2003, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Mike B, quoting CSA Vice-President, Alexander Stephens, not offering his own opinions.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

But many (if not most) of your founding fathers were slave-OWNERS. Does this mean the Stars and Stripes is a racist flag?

The causes of the civill war were far more complex than 'North wanted to free the slaves, South didn't'. Abolition wasn't even a Unionist war aim until 1863. Had the CSA survived, slavery would have continued for maybe a generation after abolition in the Union (assuming the 1865 date remains the same, which it probably wouldn't), but there's no way it could continue into the 20th Century. And maybe the road to equality would have been a little smoother in the south had the war not happened? Just a thought...

To answer Tony's question, I think the reason the Confederate flag offends people is because it's been hijacked by the offensive. Same story in the UK, where the Union Flag is commonly associated with racist skinheads and football thugs. Maybe it's time to steal 'em back...

Tony

2nd July 2003, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne

To answer Tony's question, I think the reason the Confederate flag offends people is because it's been hijacked by the offensive. Same story in the UK, where the Union Flag is commonly associated with racist skinheads and football thugs. Maybe it's time to steal 'em back...

I think you're right. I think the same could also be said of the swastika. And I cant believe people are associating the Union Jack with racism just because some yahoos fly it. You need to take the Jack back. :D

Checkmite

2nd July 2003, 04:04 AM

The whole battle flag thing knocks me for a loop. I personally find it hilarious that, out of more than 200 years of southern heritage, people have decided on a flag that represented the south for about 2 years, and was the battle standard for the losing side in a war. It does indeed send a message to me - though probably not the kind the flag owner is hoping for.

The funniest thing, though, is that your average proud rebel-flag owner is an Ohioan (or someother Midwestian) whose family immigrated to the US after World War I. :D

Ian Osborne

2nd July 2003, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Tony
I think you're right. I think the same could also be said of the swastika. And I cant believe people are associating the Union Jack with racism just because some yahoos fly it. You need to take the Jack back. :D

The swastika is so strongly associated with the Nazis that I find it highly unlikely that anyone would wear it other than as a symbol of Nazism. IIRC, the Hindu religious symbol that was hijacked is a mirror image of the Nazi swastika, leaving the one you had in mind as the sole preserve of the Nazis. I could be wrong on this though - corrections will be gratefully received.

And just for the record, the British emblem is the Union Flag. it's only called the Union Jack when flown from the bow of a ship. :)

Tony

2nd July 2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne

The swastika is so strongly associated with the Nazis that I find it highly unlikely that anyone would wear it other than as a symbol of Nazism. IIRC, the Hindu religious symbol that was hijacked is a mirror image of the Nazi swastika, leaving the one you had in mind as the sole preserve of the Nazis. I could be wrong on this though - corrections will be gratefully received.

Yeah, the nazis messed with the orientation of the original hindu swastika, but the design is essentially the same. Its a shame really, as a designer, I think the swastika is an interesting design, too bad it is tainted.

And just for the record, the British emblem is the Union Flag. it's only called the Union Jack when flown from the bow of a ship. :)

You still need to take it back. :)

Crossbow

2nd July 2003, 04:26 AM

Tony

2nd July 2003, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

How quickly people forget. :rolleyes:

Im sorry, I wasnt alive in 1871.

Crossbow

2nd July 2003, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Im sorry, I wasnt alive in 1871.

Neither was I, so I make use of history books in order to understand events that I did not witness.

By the way, the Civil War ended in 1865 and the KKK formed soon thereafter.

Tony

2nd July 2003, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

By the way, the Civil War ended in 1865 and the KKK formed soon thereafter.

Duh!! I just pulled 1871 out of my a$$.

Crossbow

2nd July 2003, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Duh!! I just pulled 1871 out of my a$$.

That is good to know.

Mike B.

2nd July 2003, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne

But many (if not most) of your founding fathers were slave-OWNERS. Does this mean the Stars and Stripes is a racist flag?

The causes of the civill war were far more complex than 'North wanted to free the slaves, South didn't'. Abolition wasn't even a Unionist war aim until 1863. Had the CSA survived, slavery would have continued for maybe a generation after abolition in the Union (assuming the 1865 date remains the same, which it probably wouldn't), but there's no way it could continue into the 20th Century. And maybe the road to equality would have been a little smoother in the south had the war not happened? Just a thought...

To answer Tony's question, I think the reason the Confederate flag offends people is because it's been hijacked by the offensive. Same story in the UK, where the Union Flag is commonly associated with racist skinheads and football thugs. Maybe it's time to steal 'em back...

I don't know Ian.
The Civil War was indeed not started because the North wanted to abolish slavery. However, it was started becaus the South seceeded because the North elected a government under the Republicans which was opposed to its spread.
When the first state South Carolina seceeded it gave this statement for doing so:

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

State after state that seceeded gave the same type of statements. Mississippi's begins with "Our cause is throughly idenfified with slavery."

When Stephens said slavery was the "cornerstone" of the new government, he meant it. One could hardly state the US Constitution's cornerstone was slavery.

Tricky

2nd July 2003, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Duh!! I just pulled 1871 out of my a$$.
Well, you were close. You must have opened a history book somewhere along the way. :D

But lets face it. Symbols mean what they have come to mean. The swastika means "Nazi" and the Stars and Bars means "Racist". It doesn't matter how any individual intends them to be taken, that is now the message they convey. And the people who fly them know this. A person who flies a rebel flag (or more commonly, has a decal of one on his truck window) is accepting the label of racist, just as anyone who flew a swastika flag in front of his house would be considered a Nazi by the general public (even if he was just proud of his war souvenirs).

I have nothing against the piece of cloth. Hell, I grew up in Alabama, where the state flag is a variation of the Confederate Battle flag. But I recognize that for many, it is a symbol of slavery and racism, so I would not be so rude as to choose to deliberately offend those people.

You can't go home again. Gay now means homosexual, tits now are not small birds, and the rebel flag stands for racism. It is a shame, but that is how it is.

Mike B.

2nd July 2003, 05:20 AM

Ian,
Also, you seem to be following the "lost cause" line about slavery dying out. The "lost cause" refers to the systematic rewriting of the history of the South to expunge slavery as any cause of the Civil War.

Is there evidence in the primary record that the SOuth was moving to abolish slavery in the 1850s before the war?

The evidence would say the opposite.
The value of slaves was going up. There was new agitation to re-open the slave trade. There was increased "fillibustering" to invade new land like Nicaraugua and Cuba to set up slave states in them. And as Kenneth Stammp and more recently Don Fehrenbacher, have shown slavery in places like Richmond was being turned into an urban institution. Tredagar Iron Works was using slaves to great advantage to work.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Tony
Does the confederate flag offend you?

That's not the Confederate flag.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Why use the Battle Flag? If you're celebrating heritage, why not use the national flag.

http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/stars_ba.gif

Actually, that's just the first Confederate flag. Since it was hard to distinguish it from a Union flag on the battlefield (causing many generals to unofficially adopt the "Southern Cross" posted above), it was changed to this:

http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/flafacts/images/1863flus.gif

However, that flag was difficult to distinguish at a distance from the flag of truce, so it was changed again to this:

http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/flafacts/images/1865flus.gif

The war ended soon after.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic
A lot of good men fought and died for the right to fly that flag,

Oh, so THAT'S what the Civil War was about! Not about slavery, not about tariffs, not about fair representation, not about states' rights, not about Constitutional restrictions on the Federal Government, or the Commerce Clause, or any of those other issues; it was all about a flag.

Thank you for clearing that up.

:p

shanek

2nd July 2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow
By the way, the Civil War ended in 1865 and the KKK formed soon thereafter.

But the KKK as formed then was not the Klan as we know it today. It was a citizens' militia, which actually didn't last. Then, after the turn of the century, it was revived as the Klan we all know and loathe today.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Mike B.
Is there evidence in the primary record that the SOuth was moving to abolish slavery in the 1850s before the war?

There is evidence, and many Southerners (including Robert E. Lee) believe this, that industrialization was going to make slavery obsolete very soon.

The value of slaves was going up.

Becuase slaves were really becoming less and less a necessity, and more and more a status symbol.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 06:16 AM

Here's someone who's not offended by the Confederate Flag:

http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/photos/2000/3/edgerton.h.k.jpg

By the way, when the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hosted the Gettysburg Reunion in 1913, they had made separate facilities for blacks on the northern side, but were completely unprepeared for the number of southern black veterans. So their white confederate brethren let them into their tents with open arms—and the north side was segregated, and the southern side wasn't!

Here's a picture of the Confederate veterans at the 1938 Gettysburg Reunion:

http://blackconfederates.tripod.com/Alabama.jpg

A couple more interesting facts:

In 1864, CSA President Jefferson Davis officially recognized blacks, both bonded and free, in the Confederate armed forces. They had been unofficially recruited before by Generals and field commanders, who were ready to take anyone willing to fight. (Confederate women even sometimes dressed in men's clothes to go fight. But that's another story.) Later that year, Davis offered freedom to any slave who served in the Confederate army for one year. (Of course, the war was to be over within a year, but he didn't know that of course.) Here's a marker dedicated to them:

http://blackconfederates.tripod.com/slavededicated.jpg

Davis also proposed a treaty with France and Great Britain where, in exchange for official recognition of the CSA, he offered complete emancipation of all slaves in the CSA and its territories. Yeah, slavery was a really huge concern, they would have been unwilling to continue without it... :rolleyes:

UnrepentantSinner

2nd July 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Actually, that's just the first Confederate flag. Since it was hard to distinguish it from a Union flag on the battlefield (causing many generals to unofficially adopt the "Southern Cross" posted above), it was changed to this:

However, that flag was difficult to distinguish at a distance from the flag of truce, so it was changed again to this:

The war ended soon after.

Not to quibble.. o.k.. to quibble, but just as I snipped the images from your quote, I only posted the first Stars and Bars to save load time on this page. It looked like it was going to get image intensive and at home I'm on dial up. :)

Quoting Tony:
"Im sorry, I wasnt alive in 1871."

I forget what your age is, but I think you're a little younger than me (35) which means you weren't alive during the early 1960s which would be a much more relavent time period for you to cite. The Southern Cross was adopted as the symbol of southerners and southern legislatures to represent their ideal of "Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever."

As a certified potential member of the Sons of the Confederacy, it's more about how the Southern Cross was abused by the segregationists during the 1960s that makes me averse to waving it proudly than it's original use during the Civil War.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
As a certified potential member of the Sons of the Confederacy, it's more about how the Southern Cross was abused by the segregationists during the 1960s that makes me averse to waving it proudly than it's original use during the Civil War.

That's a point. Here's another: The KKK has been using Christian crosses more than they used the Confederate Cross. Why is no one up in arms about this same symbol being displayed in churches all over the country?

Tricky

2nd July 2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by shanek

That's a point. Here's another: The KKK has been using Christian crosses more than they used the Confederate Cross. Why is no one up in arms about this same symbol being displayed in churches all over the country?
The symbol of the KKK is specifically the burning cross. I can pretty much assure you that you won't see many of those in church ceremonies.

UnrepentantSinner

2nd July 2003, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by shanek

That's a point. Here's another: The KKK has been using Christian crosses more than they used the Confederate Cross. Why is no one up in arms about this same symbol being displayed in churches all over the country?

Because one is the symbol of a majority being hijacked by small groups of radicals while the later is (ostensibly) the symbol of a majority being hijacked by the state legislature.

Exellent reposte! But I'd hazzard that few people would find the analogy valid.

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.mrboots.com/images/cw_apparel/bandannas/wx-ban-3500-reb-02.jpg

Does the confederate flag offend you?

Nope. But it does give me important clues about those who are so adamant about the right to incorporate it in state flags,and fly it over government institutions...

I really don't understand why some people are so offended by the sight of the confederate flag.
Really ? :rolleyes:

What are your thoughts on the confederate flag and what do you think about people that fly it?
See answer #1, above..

WMT1

2nd July 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
But lets face it. Symbols mean what they have come to mean.

Which is often different things to different people.

The swastika means "Nazi" and the Stars and Bars means "Racist".

Not to everyone. Not by a long shot.

It doesn't matter how any individual intends them to be taken,

It probably matters to that individual. But thanks for demonstrating one of the fundamental traits of PC.

that is now the message they convey.

Again, not to everyone.

A person who flies a rebel flag (or more commonly, has a decal of one on his truck window) is accepting the label of racist

Talked to everyone who flies a rebel flag, have you?

But I recognize that for many, it is a symbol of slavery and racism,

The operative words being "for many", a qualifier missing from most of your other comments.

Gay now means homosexual, tits now are not small birds, and the rebel flag stands for racism. It is a shame, but that is how it is.

And yet again, not to everyone. The firmness of some of your conclusions would suggest that you've led a somewhat sheltered life - especially if you formed those conclusions while living in Texas.

Tricky

2nd July 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
And yet again, not to everyone. The firmness of some of your conclusions would suggest that you've led a somewhat sheltered life - especially if you formed those conclusions while living in Texas.
Your monotonous objections aside, you must recognize that if most people regard a symbol or a word to mean a certain thing and you are aware of that fact, then by using that symbol or word to mean a different thing, you accept the fact that your meanings will be misinterpreted.

I suspect that you would not say to a stranger in a bar, "My, but you are queer", assuming that he would know that to you, it only means "odd".

If you display a rebel flag, you do so with the knowlege that a large number of people will believe you to be racist. If that does not bother you, then obviously, you don't mind being identified as a racist. I expect you will claim that "you don't care what people who make that kind of judgment think", or something similar. I'm not as eager to dismiss people because of the way they define words and symbols.

Though I have lived all my life in the Southern US, I am not so provincial as to think that everyone shares my world view.

KelvinG

2nd July 2003, 08:06 AM

My guess is a vast majority of Americans would have a problem with the confederate flag. I'm only speculating here, but I got a pretty good hunch that the flag does represent racist ideals to many.

But, if someone wants to fly it, that is their right. If they feel proud to do it, and they don't feel it represents repugnant ideals, then more power to them.

They may want to also walk down the street flipping everyone the bird while proudly proclaiming "It's only a finger!"

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that the confederate flag doesn't harbour negativity to many people. But don't be shocked if the reception from some isn't so pleasant.
But, you can cry "It's only a flag!"

Kodiak

2nd July 2003, 08:14 AM

My favorite flag, the Navy Jack:

http://www.atlanticfleet.navy.mil/firstnavyjack.jpg

Who (besides Al Queda) is afraid or offended by this flag?

Ladewig

2nd July 2003, 08:22 AM

Does the confederate flag offend you?

I really don't understand why some people are so offended by the sight of the confederate flag.

Well, we have something in common, because I really don't understand why people feel proud to fly the confederate flag. They say it is a symbol of their heritage, but I am confused as to why they chose that symbol from all the available symbols to represent their heritage. I would think a state flag or city flag would be much more representative of whatever regional or local values a U.S. citizen wants to cherish.

I would be more convinced of the argument that confederate flag = states' rights if southern Sentators, Representatives, and community leaders offered more political and financial support to Tibet than to China and to East Timor than to Indonesia.

c0rbin

2nd July 2003, 08:29 AM

Southern Cross

I think that is the cross of St Andrew, like on the Union Jack.

Moving back to the original question...when I see the stars and bars on the back of a pick-up truck (haven't seen one on the back of a mercedes...yet), I usually see myself asking the driver this question:

"So, are you claiming you are for state's rights or for black slavery?"

I usually am left wondering what their answer would be as they speed past me on the highway and I never get a chance.

The other day, I was driving with my three year old and we pulled through a drive through and on the back window of the pick-up (again, not a mercedes, though this would have been a little more apt to be a mercedes) was a large decal of the SS lightning-bolt "s"s.

My son asked me what "those two white lightening bolts were." I replied simply that they stood for Schutzstaffel. I left it at that until he gets a little older.

Then I might explain hate and racism to him.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Your monotonous objections aside, you must recognize that if most people regard a symbol or a word to mean a certain thing and you are aware of that fact, then by using that symbol or word to mean a different thing, you accept the fact that your meanings will be misinterpreted.

So, then, if you call yourself an atheist, and most people equate the term atheist with evil, are you then accepting the term "evil"?

If you display a rebel flag, you do so with the knowlege that a large number of people will believe you to be racist.

And if you state that you are an atheist, you do so with the knowledge that a large number of people will believe you to be evil.

If that does not bother you,

Who said that people aren't bothered by it? Isn't the whole point of speaking out like this specifically to point out that someone can fly the Confederate Cross and not be racist?

shanek

2nd July 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
They may want to also walk down the street flipping everyone the bird while proudly proclaiming "It's only a finger!"

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that the confederate flag doesn't harbour negativity to many people. But don't be shocked if the reception from some isn't so pleasant.
But, you can cry "It's only a flag!"

But that's completely different than educating them as to what the flag really stands for and the nature of the conflict between the northern and southern states, which for some hinged around slavery, for some around the tariffs, etc., but the underlying dispute behind the issue was whether or not the Federal government could go beyond its Constitutional authority or if that was taking powers which justly belonged to the states. A conflict which, in my most vocal opinion, was resolved incorrectly, even as vehemently as I am opposed to slavery.

Dancing David

2nd July 2003, 08:34 AM

The issue that a lot of people have with the flag is that it was used by the KKK and other organizations to represent thier racist viewpoints. While Jim Crow laws were still in place, that is what the flag stood for and was flown for.

So flying the Nazi flag doesn't mean you support the nazis , right?

Tricky

2nd July 2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
My favorite flag, the Navy Jack:

Who (besides Al Queda) is afraid or offended by this flag?
I couldn't see your link. Try this one.
http://www.atlanticfleet.navy.mil/firstnavyjack.jpg

Kodiak

2nd July 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by shanek

AF--LAAAAC!!!

;)

I crack me up...

:D

KelvinG

2nd July 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by shanek

But that's completely different than educating them as to what the flag really stands for and the nature of the conflict between the northern and southern states, which for some hinged around slavery, for some around the tariffs, etc., but the underlying dispute behind the issue was whether or not the Federal government could go beyond its Constitutional authority or if that was taking powers which justly belonged to the states. A conflict which, in my most vocal opinion, was resolved incorrectly, even as vehemently as I am opposed to slavery.

Of course, I agree.
I won't pretend I know much about the real reasons for the civil war, but I have often equated the confederate flag as being a symbol of slavery, hence racism.

So, yes, education is the key, I supposse.

I also believe we should teach everyone that our middle finger really is "just a finger.":D

But seriously, the battle for Confederate flag acceptance will be an uphill one, but perhaps there is hope for it's supporters.

Kodiak

2nd July 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

I couldn't see your link. Try this one.

Thanks, Tricky...

Tricky

2nd July 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by shanek
So, then, if you call yourself an atheist, and most people equate the term atheist with evil, are you then accepting the term "evil"?

And if you state that you are an atheist, you do so with the knowledge that a large number of people will believe you to be evil.
Actually, it is for that very reason that when not on these boards, I refer to myself as an agnostic, knowing they will misinterpret atheist.

However, having a discussion with someone is a bit different from flying a symbol to be seen by people you will never meet. I certainly wouldn't sport an "ATHEIST" bumper sticker on my car. Heck, I don't even have a DARWIN fish.:D

Originally posted by shanek
Who said that people aren't bothered by it? Isn't the whole point of speaking out like this specifically to point out that someone can fly the Confederate Cross and not be racist?
By all means, speak out on what you believe things mean. Do not expect people to know what you mean when you exhibit symbols that have come to have certain other meanings in today's society.

Maybe you could fly a Confederate Flag with a big label under it saying "States' Rights", or something. That would make it a little less likely to offend.

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by shanek

But that's completely different than educating them as to what the flag really stands for .......

Who needs to be educated in this regard .. ( the logic ( correct IMO ) of the rest of your post notwithstanding....)

Is the problem with the flag, just a matter of educating all the people who see it as a symbol of racism, so they are no longer offended, when they see it flying from the dome of their state capital?

Maybe we should keep quiet about signs in restaurant windows that say ' Whites Only ', and educate people that ' no one really feels that way anymore '..

WMT1

2nd July 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Your monotonous objections aside,

If you find my objections monotonous, you might want to be a little less monotonous yourself, in terms of making sweeping statements about what symbols mean.

you must recognize that if most people regard a symbol or a word to mean a certain thing and you are aware of that fact, then by using that symbol or word to mean a different thing, you accept the fact that your meanings will be misinterpreted.

Misinterpreted by some. But then, I'm pretty sure I never said otherwise. You seem to be ignoring statements I made to respond to arguments I haven't made.

I suspect that you would not say to a stranger in a bar, "My, but you are queer", assuming that he would know that to you, it only means "odd".

True enough. But then, I'm not sure I've ever known anyone for whom that's the primary meaning of the word. I've known of many people for whom the rebel flag is primarily a symbol of geographic loyalty. I find such things kind of silly myself, but they're hardly racist.

If you display a rebel flag, you do so with the knowlege that a large number of people will believe you to be racist.

A reflection of their own ignorance and prejudice, particularly if they reach such a conclusion in the South.

For the record, having long ago outgrown devotion to symbols, I've had no interest in displaying a rebel flag myself since I was in high school - as an expression of support for my school's football team.

If that does not bother you, then obviously, you don't mind being identified as a racist.

Ignorance and prejudice always bother me. So would being identified as a racist. That hardly means I have to join others in their prejudices about those who do fly the flag, or remain silent when the uninformed making sweeping statements about what symbols mean.

I expect you will claim that "you don't care what people who make that kind of judgment think", or something similar.

Nonsense. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have posted at all.

I'm not as eager to dismiss people because of the way they define words and symbols.

Actually, that's exactly what you did when you said ...

It doesn't matter how any individual intends them to be taken,

You might want to get your story straight before your next post.

Though I have lived all my life in the Southern US, I am not so provincial as to think that everyone shares my world view.

Some of your previous comments gave a different impression.

Checkmite

2nd July 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by shanek

But that's completely different than educating them as to what the flag really stands for and the nature of the conflict between the northern and southern states, which for some hinged around slavery, for some around the tariffs, etc., but the underlying dispute behind the issue was whether or not the Federal government could go beyond its Constitutional authority or if that was taking powers which justly belonged to the states.

But there's the problem, isn't it? How can you educate someone as to what something with a subjective meaning - a symbol - really stands for? The swastika originally stood for balance in nature. The thing that Tricky was trying to say was, the flag means different things for different people. For many, the flag is synonymous with "racism", thanks to the segregationalist groups that used in during the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. Several groups still undeniably fly the flag with racism clearly in mind. If you want to fly the flag, fine - but you'll just have to put up with the fact that a whole lot of people are going to think you're racist for it. You could "try" to educate them as to what the flag stands for - to you. But it won't change what it means to them.

WMT1

2nd July 2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The thing that Tricky was trying to say was, the flag means different things for different people.

Actually, with some of his statements, he seemed to be saying just the opposite.

Dymanic

2nd July 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Oh, so THAT'S what the Civil War was about! Not about slavery, not about tariffs, not about fair representation, not about states' rights, not about Constitutional restrictions on the Federal Government, or the Commerce Clause, or any of those other issues; it was all about a flag.

Thank you for clearing that up.
No problem.

the underlying dispute behind the issue was whether or not the Federal government could go beyond its Constitutional authority or if that was taking powers which justly belonged to the states.
Apparently you agree then.

In other words, the central issue to be determined on the battlefield was: whether or not individual states had the right to withdraw from the Union and form a separate union (complete with its own flag).

zakur

2nd July 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
http://www.atlanticfleet.navy.mil/firstnavyjack.jpg

Who (besides Al Queda) is afraid or offended by this flag?Ophidiophobes? Herpetologists? ;)

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

In other words, the central issue to be determined on the battlefield was: whether or not individual states had the right to withdraw from the Union and form a separate union (complete with its own flag).

..... And, it was decided ( on the battlefield ) that they didn't...

Dymanic

2nd July 2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

..... And, it was decided ( on the battlefield ) that they didn't...Right. Not fundamentally much different from the central issue that brought about the American Revolution (which wasn't actually about tea, either). My original point precisely. For more than one hundred years, however, there have continued to be people in the South who have regarded this as mostly a formality.

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic
Right. Not fundamentally much different from the central issue that brought about the American Revolution (which wasn't actually about tea, either). My original point precisely. For more than one hundred years, however, there have continued to be people in the South who have regarded this as mostly a formality.

LOL :D (.... losing the war a formality....picky, picky..... )

Checkmite

2nd July 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Actually, with some of his statements, he seemed to be saying just the opposite.

I did not get that impression while reading his post.

WMT1

2nd July 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The thing that Tricky was trying to say was, the flag means different things for different people.

Originally posted by WMT1
Actually, with some of his statements, he seemed to be saying just the opposite.

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I did not get that impression while reading his post.

Try reading all of his posts (in this thread). If, after doing so, you cannot find any such statements, I'll try to help you out.

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 11:19 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The thing that Tricky was trying to say was, the flag means different things for different people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by WMT1

Actually, with some of his statements, he seemed to be saying just the opposite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:confused:

Maybe this belongs in the ' PUZZLES ' forum....

The opposite of " ....The flag means different things for different people. "
is ?

I come up with :

" The flag doesn't mean different things for different people."

Anyone else?

(P.S.) JK, I think I understand what Tricky is saying also. I hope you will all forgive me if it seems bigoted for me to say, when I drive past a house with the confederate battle flag flying in the front yard, it doesn't occur to me that the house might belong to an aging civil rights activist from the 60's, who's grandfather fought in the Civil war, for the Confederacy.
It also doesn't occur to me, that pretending I have such a thought, might make me appear more tolerant of someone else's right to free speech.

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Try reading all of his posts (in this thread). If, after doing so, you cannot find any such statements, I'll try to help you out.

I need some help....

WMT1

2nd July 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
The opposite of " ....The flag means different things for different people. " is ?

I come up with :

" The flag doesn't mean different things for different people."

Anyone else?

Sounds good to me. But if it's unclear to you, let's review a bit. Tricky posted:

But lets face it. Symbols mean what they have come to mean. The swastika means "Nazi" and the Stars and Bars means "Racist". It doesn't matter how any individual intends them to be taken, that is now the message they convey. And the people who fly them know this. A person who flies a rebel flag (or more commonly, has a decal of one on his truck window) is accepting the label of racist, just as anyone who flew a swastika flag in front of his house would be considered a Nazi by the general public (even if he was just proud of his war souvenirs).

and ...

You can't go home again. Gay now means homosexual, tits now are not small birds, and the rebel flag stands for racism. It is a shame, but that is how it is.

Now, which of the following seems more compatible with the parts I've highlighted?

A. The flag means different things for different people.

B. The flag doesn't mean different things for different people.

I hope you will all forgive me if it seems bigoted for me to say, when I drive past a house with the confederate battle flag flying in the front yard, it doesn't occur to me that the house might belong to an aging civil rights activist from the 60's, who's grandfather fought in the Civil war, for the Confederacy.

Does it occur to you that it might mean anything that is not racist? If not, then at the very least, it makes you seem like someone who is a bit stubborn about his prejudices.

It also doesn't occur to me, that pretending I have such a thought, might make me appear more tolerant of someone else's right to free speech.

Actually, it's more like being closed to the possibility might make you appear incapable of overcoming the prejudices I just mentioned.

Tricky

2nd July 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

Try reading all of his posts (in this thread). If, after doing so, you cannot find any such statements, I'll try to help you out.
I do confess, I have made some sweeping statements. Like
Originally posted by Tricky
You can't go home again. Gay now means homosexual, tits now are not small birds, and the rebel flag stands for racism. It is a shame, but that is how it is.
In your zeal to prove me wrong, you have nit-picked my posts to imply that I was telling you what everybody believed, when it appears obvious to most people here that I was implying that this was a general perception, not a ubiquitous one. Perhaps I should repair this oversight so as to not offend your delicate sensibilities.

Originally posted by Tricky
You can't go home again. For most in the US, gay now means homosexual. For most in the US, tits now are not small birds. And For most in the US, the rebel flag stands for racism. It is a shame, but that is how it is.

Better?

WMT1

2nd July 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
In your zeal to prove me wrong, you have nit-picked my posts to imply that I was telling you what everybody believed, when it appears obvious to most people here that I was implying that this was a general perception, not a ubiquitous one. Perhaps I should repair this oversight so as to not offend your delicate sensibilities.

:rolleyes:

I never cease to be amazed at the lengths some people will go to in order to spin the problems in their own statements as someone else's problem. Real classy.

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

Actually, it's more like being closed to the possibility might make you appear incapable of overcoming the prejudices I just mentioned.

If it was in a yard in Oregon, I might think ' Huh ? '

In Georgia, if I considered it was other than racist, I would also consider it was someone who was insensitive to the wounds and scars of their community, with a much more recent infliction than the years of the Civil War.

With that in mind, I can't imagine an excuse that I would find acceptable, from anyone who claims to be a decent human being.

If that's prejudiced ( ... and have no doubt it is. ), then it is one predjudice, I have no desire to overcome.

Tricky

2nd July 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

:rolleyes:

I never cease to be amazed at the lengths some people will go to in order to spin the problems in their own statements as someone else's problem. Real classy.
LOL. Yup. I'm a classy dude. However, if you can somehow manage to refrain from pedantry for a moment, would you mind answering a couple of questions? They're easy ones, just yes or no.

1. Do you think that most Americans are aware that the Confederate Battle Flag is considered by many to be a racist symbol?

2. If the answer to the above is yes, does a person who knows this, and who still displays a rebel flag understand that many will perceive him as a racist?

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 12:54 PM

quote: Originally posted by WMT1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't go home again. Gay now means homosexual, tits now are not small birds, and the rebel flag stands for racism. It is a shame, but that is how it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, which of the following seems more compatible with the parts I've highlighted?

A. The flag means different things for different people.

B. The flag doesn't mean different things for different people.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh! That was what you meant...

I thought Tricky meant that ' most ' people associated the Confederate battle flag with racism...

Of course he could be wrong, and depending on the region and neighborhood where you ran a poll, he would certainly be wrong. But some of us figured out.......... that wasn't his point.

Dancing David

2nd July 2003, 01:47 PM

What about the fact that racists did use the battle flag as thier symbol, no matter what maudlin sentiments are attached to it now.

Geesh WMT1 it was used by the racists that is how it got associated with racism.

The whole 'rebel' thing started in the late seventies with the Dukes of Hazard, up until then it was a very strong code for the hatred of the black man.

One civil rights activist who had a civil war grandfather does not mean that the Klan did not post it as a warning of thier precense.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Maybe you could fly a Confederate Flag with a big label under it saying "States' Rights", or something. That would make it a little less likely to offend.

Many of them do something similar..."Heritage, not hate" is a popular one.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Who needs to be educated in this regard .. ( the logic ( correct IMO ) of the rest of your post notwithstanding....)

Is the problem with the flag, just a matter of educating all the people who see it as a symbol of racism, so they are no longer offended, when they see it flying from the dome of their state capital?

Maybe we should keep quiet about signs in restaurant windows that say ' Whites Only ', and educate people that ' no one really feels that way anymore '..

Oh, come on—don't tell me you're honestly trying to equate the two! There is a vast difference between flying a flag, the action of which harms no one, and placing up a sign restricting what people can do based on the color of their skin!

shanek

2nd July 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
1. Do you think that most Americans

"Most Americans" also think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. Don't tell me we should be making decisions on morality based on what "most Americans" think!

Part of the point many have in flying the flag is to attack the perceptions...just as those who fought for Civil Rights attacked the perception that blacks were an inferior race.

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Oh, come on—don't tell me you're honestly trying to equate the two! There is a vast difference between flying a flag, the action of which harms no one, and placing up a sign restricting what people can do based on the color of their skin!

In a sense I was trying to equate the two ...

It seemed you were trying to suggest we educate people who have been discriminated against, about ' a flag is just a flag ', so that racists could feel free to wave a flag that carries the same message as the ' Whites Only ' sign..

In other words, ' The victims need to get over it ', so the racists can have their ' free speech '..

If you had a deeper meaning, perhaps you could elaborate?

Dymanic

2nd July 2003, 02:58 PM

Racists in the south have a track record with regard to their willingness to operate outside the law to further their ends. They have often communicated this willingness through the use of certain symbols. Such a symbol could be used as a substitute for a sign reading, "Whites only". In certain places and under certain circumstances, it probably is a reasonable default assumption that one of these symbols on display is indeed intended as such a communication. In most places, and under most circumstances, a reasonable default assumption is that a person displaying such a symbol is at least sympathetic to an associated mindset.

We don't seem to be debating the morality of racism; I expect we all pretty much agree on that. What is at issue is whether or not a certain flag is a symbol of racism, or something else -- and toward establishing that, 'what most Americans think' is quite pertinent.

It seems to me that the primary meaning of a symbol is whatever the majority percieves it as meaning -- it is in fact its recognizeability by the maximum number of people as having a certain meaning that gives a symbol its utility -- it is a shortcut past lengthy explanations. If what you want is to present a lengthy explanation, then do that, but realize that the symbol means what it means.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
In a sense I was trying to equate the two ...

It seemed you were trying to suggest we educate people who have been discriminated against, about ' a flag is just a flag ', so that racists could feel free to wave a flag that carries the same message as the ' Whites Only ' sign..

In other words, ' The victims need to get over it ', so the racists can have their ' free speech '..

These words betray your bigotry: You're not only assuming, you're stating directly, that anyone who flies the Confederate Cross is racist and intends to be sending a racist message, as they would be with the "whites only" sign. That's not the case, and only an ignorant and bigoted person would say that it is.

DavidJames

2nd July 2003, 03:11 PM

"Part of the point many have in flying the flag is to attack the perceptions"

So I'm clear. Are you saying that "many" people fly the confederate flag to demonstrate that non-racists fly the flag as well as racists?

Tricky

2nd July 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by shanek
"Most Americans" also think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. Don't tell me we should be making decisions on morality based on what "most Americans" think!

Shanek, this is not the point. Whether they are right or wrong, people will perceive rebel flag flyers as racist. The question is, does it matter to you if you are perceived this way? You already asked about atheists being percieved as evil and I explained that I did not wish to be perceived as evil, therefore I don't flaunt my atheism.

People who do not want to be perceived as racists should not flaunt the rebel flag. If you don't care how you are perceived, then go right ahead, or indicate by an additional sign, as we suggested, what the flag means to you.

Originally posted by shanek
Part of the point many have in flying the flag is to attack the perceptions...just as those who fought for Civil Rights attacked the perception that blacks were an inferior race.
Then by all means, get out and fight those perceptions. Someday, you may convince people. However, that may be difficult, as my observation from growing up in Alabama is that many and probably most southerners who identify with the Confederacy are racists. Bad ones. Some of them are my family. (Of course, they claim that they only wear the white sheets and hoods because they are so comfy.):con2:

shanek

2nd July 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
So I'm clear. Are you saying that "many" people fly the confederate flag to demonstrate that non-racists fly the flag as well as racists?

Yes.

shanek

2nd July 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Shanek, this is not the point. Whether they are right or wrong, people will perceive rebel flag flyers as racist. The question is, does it matter to you if you are perceived this way?

It hardly matters to me, as I don't fly the flag. (I don't fly any flag.) But I am very concerned at the lack of education and the staggering amount of misinformation regarding the Civil War. I recently say an "educational" cartoon which said (among other, just as false things) that the South seceded because Lincoln was going to free the slaves, that the slaves just had to get north of the Mason-Dixon line to be free, that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, on and on and on.

This whole thing about the flag being hijacked by racists 100 years later is just crap. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of those who view the Confederate Cross as racist do so because they think the Civil War was a racist war fought over racist issues. And it wasn't.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your bigoted comments.

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by shanek

These words betray your bigotry: You're not only assuming, you're stating directly, that anyone who flies the Confederate Cross is racist and intends to be sending a racist message, as they would be with the "whites only" sign. That's not the case, and only an ignorant and bigoted person would say that it is. Ooooh.. Bigot has such a caustic ring to it..:eek:

But, so be it.

I addressed your concerns in an earlier post.... ( Feel free to substitute ' bigot ' for ' predjudiced '

If it ( the flag ) was in a yard in Oregon, I might think ' Huh ? '

In Georgia, if I considered it ( displaying the flag ) was other than racist, I would also consider it was someone who was insensitive to the wounds and scars of their community, with a much more recent infliction than the years of the Civil War.

With that in mind, I can't imagine an excuse that I would find acceptable, from anyone who claims to be a decent human being.

If that's prejudiced ( ... and have no doubt it is. ), then it is one predjudice, I have no desire to overcome.
I support the philosophy of free speech to the max.. ( And I sense that you do also ...) One facet of this ( free speech ), that I find useful, is that it helps me avoid ( when I choose to do so )engaging some of those people who are the object of my bigotry.

Skeptical Greg

2nd July 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by shanek

It hardly matters to me, as I don't fly the flag. (I don't fly any flag.) But I am very concerned at the lack of education and the staggering amount of misinformation regarding the Civil War. I recently say an "educational" cartoon which said (among other, just as false things) that the South seceded because Lincoln was going to free the slaves, that the slaves just had to get north of the Mason-Dixon line to be free, that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, on and on and on.

This whole thing about the flag being hijacked by racists 100 years later is just crap. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of those who view the Confederate Cross as racist do so because they think the Civil War was a racist war fought over racist issues. And it wasn't.

I share your concern for the lack of education regarding the reasons behind the Civil war.
But whether or not it was racist back then, has nothing to do with the fact that the flag is a symbol of racism today.
I really don't believe you are naive in that respect, so I have to assume you are taking some sort of ' get over it ' stance,
with regard to the large number of people who have a problem with the negative conotations associated with this flag.

Pyrrho

2nd July 2003, 06:02 PM

The Confederate flag does not offend me, but it does sadden me, because it symbolizes the wistful -- and perhaps not-so-wistful -- desire for "the South" to be separate from the rest of the country. It is a symbol of national division; it is a symbol of a "national identity" that tore the country apart so many years ago, and which, given the right circumstances, would tear it apart again. It is very saddening to know that many individuals would willingly support a recurrence of that national tragedy.

Tricky

2nd July 2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by shanek
It hardly matters to me, as I don't fly the flag. (I don't fly any flag.)
Nor do I. I also don't have any political bumper stickers.

But I am very concerned at the lack of education and the staggering amount of misinformation regarding the Civil War. I recently say an "educational" cartoon which said (among other, just as false things) that the South seceded because Lincoln was going to free the slaves, that the slaves just had to get north of the Mason-Dixon line to be free, that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, on and on and on.

I too am appalled by the revisionist history being taught these days. Read Lies My Teacher Told Me (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684818868/qid=1057198213/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3853918-2994259?v=glance&s=books) for another look at the sacred myths that pass as history. However, this isn't really the topic here.

This whole thing about the flag being hijacked by racists 100 years later is just crap.
That part is not crap. I grew up in Alabama in the sixties, and I can assure you that it was very much a racist symbol. Maybe you don't agree with the racists like the Klu Klux Klan who have used it as one of their primary symbols, or with others who have used it as a statement about how they feel about racial equality. I am glad for you, but your open-mindedness is not shared by all. I know this may come as a shock to you.

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of those who view the Confederate Cross as racist do so because they think the Civil War was a racist war fought over racist issues. And it wasn't.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your bigoted comments.
If I didn't know better, I'd almost think that was a bigoted statement. How in the world do you know what " the vast majority of those who view the Confederate Cross as racist" think? Personally, I think it has little to do with the civil war, and much more to do with the struggle for civil rights. However, I should also say that I don't find that flag offensive. I'm pretty hard to offend, even when being called a bigot.

WMT1

3rd July 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
In Georgia, if I considered it was other than racist, I would also consider it was someone who was insensitive to the wounds and scars of their community, with a much more recent infliction than the years of the Civil War.

What "wounds and scars of their community" are you talking about, and how is anyone being "insensitive" to them?

With that in mind, I can't imagine an excuse that I would find acceptable, from anyone who claims to be a decent human being.

An "excuse" for what? It might make the discussion more efficient if you could manage to be specific.

If that's prejudiced ( ... and have no doubt it is. ), then it is one predjucice, I have no desire to overcome.

Hilarious. I can easily imagine racists using the same exact words to express similar righteous indignation about their own prejudices. Oh, the irony.

WMT1

3rd July 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
LOL. Yup. I'm a classy dude.

Given your reluctance to own up to the problems in your statements without relying on sarcasm, the accuracy of that assessment is becoming clearer with each exchange.

However, if you can somehow manage to refrain from pedantry for a moment,

It would be refreshing if you could somehow manage to refrain from trying to create the impression of problems in my posts to divert attention from the actual ones in your own.

would you mind answering a couple of questions? They're easy ones, just yes or no.

Sure. Does that mean you'll return the favor? After all, based on our previous discussions, you are the one who's been kind of challenged in that area, remember?

1. Do you think that most Americans are aware that the Confederate Battle Flag is considered by many to be a racist symbol?

Yes. By asking, are you trying to create the impression that this is what I was disputing for some reason?

2. If the answer to the above is yes, does a person who knows this, and who still displays a rebel flag understand that many will perceive him as a racist?

Probably so. This, too, is something I haven't disputed. But of course, the problem lies with those doing the perceiving, by refusing to take into account that "the flag means different things for different people".

WMT1

3rd July 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Oh! That was what you meant...

I thought Tricky meant that ' most ' people associated the Confederate battle flag with racism...

Of course he could be wrong, and depending on the region and neighborhood where you ran a poll, he would certainly be wrong. But some of us figured out.......... that wasn't his point.

:rolleyes: Was that before or after he altered some of his statements?

And incidentally, I noticed that you included the question I asked in your post, but did not actually answer it. Once again, which of the following seems more compatible with the parts of Tricky's original statements that I highlighted?

A. The flag means different things for different people.

B. The flag doesn't mean different things for different people.

WMT1

3rd July 2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Geesh WMT1 it was used by the racists that is how it got associated with racism.

Why is this statement addressed to me? I'm pretty sure I have neither disputed that some associate it with racism, nor expressed any confusion about the basis for that association. You might want to read my posts more carefully, and figure out exactly what you're responding to.

WMT1

3rd July 2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
It seemed you were trying to suggest we educate people who have been discriminated against, about ' a flag is just a flag ', so that racists could feel free to wave a flag that carries the same message as the ' Whites Only ' sign..

In other words, ' The victims need to get over it ', so the racists can have their ' free speech '..

I can't tell whether the above statements are a product of incompetence at interpreting the words of others, or simply heavy reliance on spin and hyperbole to manufacture a point, but whichever is the case, you must be so proud.

WMT1

3rd July 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Whether they are right or wrong, people will perceive rebel flag flyers as racist.

Would you mind answering a question? It's an easy one, just yes or no.

Should people tailor all of their expression to perceptions based on ignorance?

WMT1

3rd July 2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Ooooh.. Bigot has such a caustic ring to it.. :eek:

Like Tricky, you seem to have a problem determining when sarcasm is actually warranted.

WMT1

3rd July 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
How in the world do you know what " the vast majority of those who view the Confederate Cross as racist" think?

Does anyone else see the irony here?

Dancing David

3rd July 2003, 07:36 AM

Dancing David

3rd July 2003, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Why is this statement addressed to me? I'm pretty sure I have neither disputed that some associate it with racism, nor expressed any confusion about the basis for that association. You might want to read my posts more carefully, and figure out exactly what you're responding to.

I rersponding to what I percieve in your posts as statemnets saying that the flag is wrongly associated with racism. If the Klan flew it at rallys and it was a widely recognised secret sign of the Klan, then it is the Klan that associated it with racism, I am sorry if I misunderstood your posts.

They seemed to be saying that the battle flag of the CSA is a general symbol of the south , which it has become in the last thirty years. Prior to that it was a symbol used by the Klan to say that the south will rise again.

Dancing David

3rd July 2003, 07:45 AM

To make my point clear, the CSA battle flag is NOT considered to be racist because the Civil War was racist.(It was economic, as are most wars)

The CSA battle flag (is it the Alabama regimental battle flag?) is considered racist because for many years it was used by the Klan and other racist as a symbol of white supremacy, the flying of the flag was meant as a warning and boast.

I agree that there is a free speech issue and that is cool, you want to fly one as am individual that is your right, just as I have friends who own Nazi flags.

But for a government gaency of any sort to use a symbol that racists choose and used to intimidate people woulkd be wrong.

Tricky

3rd July 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Given your reluctance to own up to the problems in your statements without relying on sarcasm, the accuracy of that assessment is becoming clearer with each exchange.
I regard sarcasm as a valid debating tool. You have been known to use it yourself from time to time. For example..

WMT said:
I never cease to be amazed at the lengths some people will go to in order to spin the problems in their own statements as someone else's problem. Real classy.

It's just that your are not as good at it. ;)

It would be refreshing if you could somehow manage to refrain from trying to create the impression of problems in my posts to divert attention from the actual ones in your own.

What the "problem" boils down to is that you seem to be annoyed because I have not inserted "some" and "I think" every few words. Most readers do not need that kind of hand-holding. The are capable of understanding what is implied.

Sure. Does that mean you'll return the favor? After all, based on our previous discussions, you are the one who's been kind of challenged in that area, remember?
Oh? Well then ask away. Be sure to state them clearly, because I am mentally challenged and have a difficult time separating rhetorical questions from actual queries.

Yes. By asking, are you trying to create the impression that this is what I was disputing for some reason?
Nope. Just trying to get you to come out and say it. Mostly you just tell us what you haven't said.

Probably so. This, too, is something I haven't disputed. But of course, the problem lies with those doing the perceiving, by refusing to take into account that "the flag means different things for different people".
Well, I predicted you would say something like this where you blame the people perceiving several posts back when I said:
Tricky said:
I expect you will claim that "you don't care what people who make that kind of judgment think", or something similar.
That prediction has now been proved correct.

Neverthesame and all-the-less, we have now got your own admission that people who fly the rebel flag do so knowing they will be considered by many to be racist. This was the sole point I was trying to make. I didn't realize it would be so difficult to make you understand it.

The question I cannot seem to answer is why non-racists would want to be branded this way? Shanek seems to think they do it deliberately to prove that non-racists can be "heritage supporters" too. But this doesn't really make sense. The overwhelming majority of people who see a person display the Stars and Bars are never going to have a chance to discuss the real reasons it was displayed. The first impression is the only impression they will ever get, and I cannot fathom why anyone would want to make such a poor first impression, even among people who have "problems in perceiving".

The only conceivable position I can see the flyer taking is that they know they will be labeled a racist, and they are okay with that. Maybe they are okay with that because they don't care what other people think, and maybe they are okay with that because the label is correct. Or both.

Can you think of any good reason why a person would want strangers to think he is a racist?

Tricky

3rd July 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Would you mind answering a question? It's an easy one, just yes or no.

Should people tailor all of their expression to perceptions based on ignorance?
No.

Cleopatra

3rd July 2003, 10:36 AM

I read this thread in the morning carefully. Thanks everybody. I learned many things I ignored

shanek

3rd July 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I share your concern for the lack of education regarding the reasons behind the Civil war.
But whether or not it was racist back then, has nothing to do with the fact that the flag is a symbol of racism today.
I really don't believe you are naive in that respect, so I have to assume you are taking some sort of ' get over it ' stance,
with regard to the large number of people who have a problem with the negative conotations associated with this flag.

You're really getting apologetic here...but you ignored the basic point I was making: That most of these people believe the Confederate Cross to be racist, not because it's been "hijacked" by racist groups, but because they think the Civil War was a racist war! Go to any of those flag protests and ask the protesters why the flag is racist. They'll all bring up the Civil War. I haven't heard a single one bring up this "hijacking" thing.

shanek

3rd July 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
The Confederate flag does not offend me, but it does sadden me, because it symbolizes the wistful -- and perhaps not-so-wistful -- desire for "the South" to be separate from the rest of the country. It is a symbol of national division; it is a symbol of a "national identity" that tore the country apart so many years ago, and which, given the right circumstances, would tear it apart again. It is very saddening to know that many individuals would willingly support a recurrence of that national tragedy.

The South was not about tearing the Union apart. They only did that when the Congress, controlled by the northern states, refused to stop their unconstitutional activities.

The New England states debated secession earlier in the 1800s. Why does this not apply to them just because they decided in the end not to go through with it? No one at the time denied the right of the states to secede. It was seen as the last resort against an oppressive Federal government, which was exactly the case with the Civil War.

Dancing David

3rd July 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by shanek

The South was not about tearing the Union apart. They only did that when the Congress, controlled by the northern states, refused to stop their unconstitutional activities.

The New England states debated secession earlier in the 1800s. Why does this not apply to them just because they decided in the end not to go through with it? No one at the time denied the right of the states to secede. It was seen as the last resort against an oppressive Federal government, which was exactly the case with the Civil War.

Very cogent!

Sorry folks if the Civil War was about slavery then the Fourteenth Amendment would have freed tha slaves in Maryland.

Shane I understand that perhaps modern protestors don't know squat about why the flag is racist. It wasn't hijacked by the racists it was deliberately used by the racists.

The issue about the flag is that government bodies sould not use it, just as it would be senseless to have a monument to the slaughter of the innocents at Prophet's town.

The argument is divorced from logic, it is about the feelings of people whose grandparents were terrified of the Confederate battle flag.

It won't ever make sense because it is about feelings.

Nie Trink Wasser

3rd July 2003, 10:53 AM

Black Confederates :

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=22787

shanek

3rd July 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Nor do I. I also don't have any political bumper stickers.

I just have one generic Libertarian Party bumper sticker.

I too am appalled by the revisionist history being taught these days. Read Lies My Teacher Told Me (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684818868/qid=1057198213/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3853918-2994259?v=glance&s=books) for another look at the sacred myths that pass as history.

Yeah, that's a great one.

However, this isn't really the topic here.

Isn't it? Given that most of the flag protestors are doing so based on inaccurate and even downright false information on the Civil War, I would think it is very relevant to the topic.

That part is not crap. I grew up in Alabama in the sixties, and I can assure you that it was very much a racist symbol.

Getting anecdotal here, huh? I've lived in NC all my life. I know of many people who fly the Confederate Cross. Of them, some are racist, some aren't. But I haven't noticed any greater tendency towards racism from those that fly it than from those than don't. Aside from the KKK, none of the other hate groups seem to fly the flag at all. The head of our local Sons of Confederate Veterans is black, and his great-great uncle served as a Confederate Army field cook in the Civil War, so it's also untrue that groups dedicated to Confederate history are racist. You're talking about two completely separate types of groups here.

If I didn't know better, I'd almost think that was a bigoted statement. How in the world do you know what " the vast majority of those who view the Confederate Cross as racist" think?

Because I've asked a ton of the protestors around here, and I have yet to get any answer that doesn't involve the Civil War. I said "vast majority" and not "all" because there probably are those out there who go along with the "hijack" theory, but of all the people in all the protests I've talked to NOT A SINGLE ONE even mentioned that.

shanek

3rd July 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Yow Shane, harsh words and suprisingly illinformed. The Klan and other white supremisists used the battle flag as a sysmbol of thier racism, that is why people who are targeted by the Klan say is is racist.

Oh, I'm ill-informed? Let's just do a Google search for "confederate flag" and "protests", shall we? Let's see what the flag protestors and reporters covering Confederate flag protests have to say about it:

http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/silverchips/articles/mar2001confederate4.html

Many consider the Confederate flag a racist symbol because it represents the era of history in the United States' South when slavery was widely supported.

http://thekansascitychannel.com/news/1916651/detail.html

[article isn't there anymore]

http://veracity.univpubs.american.edu/weekly_site/weeklypast/022001/story_5.html

At around the same time, the NCAA sought comments from member institutions. AU President Benjamin Ladner responded.

"I urge the NCAA to discontinue plans for events in states where the legislatures continue to support the display of the confederate flag, regardless of the cost to NCAA member institutions," he wrote. "The image of the confederate flag almost 138 years after the Emancipation Proclamation is an affront to all people of the United States, regardless of race or creed," he continued. "It is a reminder and symbol of a divided nation and of the inhuman treatment of American people. It has no further place in America beyond the history books."

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2000/03/03-23-00tdc/03-23-00dsports-8.asp

Frost said the people who wanted to keep the flag up, in his mind, didn't want to do so as a reminder of the slavery issue during the Civil War. Instead, he said the proponents want to keep it up as a memorial to those who fought for the South and died.

http://monkeyfist.com/articles/87

On one side, you've got abolitionists who can't see why these boneheads from the South can't parse such a simple moral problem, and on the other side you've got white Southern nationalists who can't figure out why these Yankees won't stop sticking their noses into other people's business.

That's why the flag supporters look blank when you ask them, "What about the heritage of black Southerners?" As far as they're concerned, the War Between the States was just an early example of the federal government attempting social engineering by confiscating private property (aka black folks).

http://www.kentuckysip.homestead.com/files/South_Carolina_Braces_for_More_Flag_Protests.htm

[doesn't say one way or the other]

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/confederate.rally/

[doesn't say one way or the other]

http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/5525

[doesn't say one way or the other]

And that's all of the hits from the first page of results. Every single one that mentioed the cause of the controversy went to the Civil War, not to more contemporary hate groups.

I'm ill-informed... :rolleyes:

shanek

3rd July 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
To make my point clear, the CSA battle flag is NOT considered to be racist because the Civil War was racist.

I think I've thoroughly smashed that claim to tiny little bits.

shanek

3rd July 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
The issue about the flag is that government bodies sould not use it, just as it would be senseless to have a monument to the slaughter of the innocents at Prophet's town.

Hardly the same thing! If there were anything in the Civil War resembling a slaughter, it's the thousands upon thousands of innocents, including women and children, who were burned to death in Sherman's March to the Sea.

The argument is divorced from logic, it is about the feelings of people whose grandparents were terrified of the Confederate battle flag.

No one has presented any evidence of that. The slaves almost certainly feared their individual masters (even in the Union states which still had slaves), but there's no evidence that they "feared" the Confederacy or its flag any more than they feared the Union, which, even up to and during the civil war, continued to enfoce the Fugitive Slave Act. In fact, as I have shown beyond any doubt, many of them took up arms to fight in the defense of the Confederacy.

WMT1

3rd July 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I rersponding to what I percieve in your posts as statemnets saying that the flag is wrongly associated with racism.

If this is still your perception, then please identify which of my statements (in my words, not yours) you're talking about.

WMT1

3rd July 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
LOL. Yup. I'm a classy dude.

Originally posted by WMT1
Given your reluctance to own up to the problems in your statements without relying on sarcasm, the accuracy of that assessment is becoming clearer with each exchange.

Originally posted by Tricky
I regard sarcasm as a valid debating tool. You have been known to use it yourself from time to time.

Absolutely. I'm not criticizing you for using sarcasm. I'm criticizing you for misusing it. It helps to understand the difference.

It's just that your are not as good at it. ;)

Actually, part of being "good at it" is knowing when it's warranted. When you are the one who makes statements worthy of criticism, responding to that criticism with sarcasm would be an example of the misuse I just mentioned. ;)

What the "problem" boils down to is that you seem to be annoyed because I have not inserted "some" and "I think" every few words. Most readers do not need that kind of hand-holding. The are capable of understanding what is implied.

:rolleyes:

And yet another incompetent poster who insists on spinning his own sloppiness as someone else's problem. Sorry, but your statements are on record, and I'm betting that, to "most readers", when you say things like ...

It doesn't matter how any individual intends them to be taken, that is now the message they convey.

and ...

A person who flies a rebel flag (or more commonly, has a decal of one on his truck window) is accepting the label of racist

... you're not exactly communicating that you think there's much room for different interpretations.

Be sure to state them clearly, because I am mentally challenged and have a difficult time separating rhetorical questions from actual queries.

This would be another one of those misuses of sarcasm I was talking about. Again, the trick is knowing when it's warranted. So far, it seems to be all you've got to dismiss someone else's valid criticisms of your posts.

1. Do you think that most Americans are aware that the Confederate Battle Flag is considered by many to be a racist symbol?

Yes. By asking, are you trying to create the impression that this is what I was disputing for some reason?

Nope. Just trying to get you to come out and say it.

If that's all the explanation you can manage, your "nope" sure comes across as a "yes, but I just don't want to admit it".

Mostly you just tell us what you haven't said.

It was already obvious you're not one to let a little thing like accuracy get in the way of creating the impression of a valid insult. This is just one more example. And whaddaya know, we've got another one coming up ...

Well, I predicted you would say something like this where you blame the people perceiving several posts back when I said:

I expect you will claim that "you don't care what people who make that kind of judgment think", or something similar.

That prediction has now been proved correct.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

I never cease to be amazed at the hoops some people will jump through in order to manufacture a point.

First, "blame the people perceiving" is not similar to "you don't care what people who make that kind of judgment think". They are two different things. So, don't pat yourself on the back just yet.

Moreover, let's say for the sake of argument that you did specifically predict that I would "blame the people perceiving". What comes to mind is a resounding "so what?". All that would mean is that you correctly predicted I would have an opinion about where the blame belongs, just as you do.

So, when you take all that into account, your "prediction" doesn't amount to much, does it?

Neverthesame and all-the-less, we have now got your own admission that people who fly the rebel flag do so knowing they will be considered by many to be racist.

:rolleyes: And yet another entry in the "so what?" department. You say this as if it's something I had been asked about, but resisted answering, which is clearly not the case. Your comment is just more blather about stuff that wasn't in dispute in the first place, apparently to create the illusion of some kind of victory. Would I get points if I were to accurately "predict" that this won't be the last such comment?

This was the sole point I was trying to make.

Then why couldn't you manage to find a way to make that point without all those sweeping statements that prompted my responses in the first place?

I didn't realize it would be so difficult to make you understand it.

And here we have yet another attempt to create the impression of a valid insult. Damn, no wonder you thought BillyTK was prevailing in that other discussion. Some of the stuff you're relying on is right out of his playbook. I guess if you're easily impressed by such things, it should come as no surprise that you'd use them yourself.

The question I cannot seem to answer is why non-racists would want to be branded this way?

Then you might want to ask one, if you can find one.

Can you think of any good reason why a person would want strangers to think he is a racist?

No. I'm pretty sure I've never met anyone who does.

Ian Osborne

3rd July 2003, 11:45 AM

I see more common ground than I do differences here. From what I can glean, Shane and co. believe the Stars and Bars is not inherently racist as a symbol (unlike, for example, a KKK uniform which has never stood for anything else), but has been hijacked by racists for their own ends. Tricky and others argue that the flag is so commonly associated with racism that anyone displaying it will be assumed to be racist, whether they are or not. After all, who would give a Nazi salute highlighting its ancient Roman origins?

For my money, these positions are not mutually exclusive; I would certainly agree with both. It's where we take it next that's the problem. In the UK, the Union Flag has also been stolen by racists, most notably football thugs. It's time we stole it back, through better information and legitimate public display, but I'm damned if I'd wear a Union Flag T-shirt to a football match.

Shaun from Scotland

3rd July 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
IFor my money, these positions are not mutually exclusive; I would certainly agree with both. It's where we take it next that's the problem. In the UK, the Union Flag has also been stolen by racists, most notably football thugs. It's time we stole it back, through better information and legitimate public display, but I'm damned if I'd wear a Union Flag T-shirt to a football match.

Believe it or not, it is technically illegal for a private ciizen to display the Union flag. It should only be flown by the military, Government buildings etc. Private individuals should only fly the flags of England, Scotland etc.

Not a lot of people know that...:eek:

Dancing David

3rd July 2003, 11:55 AM

ShaneK, I understand your logic and can not battle it, my viewpoint just comes from talkin to down home folks from the south and midwest who told me that the Klan used the CSA flag because they couldn't or wouldn't openly display Klan signs.
It is anecdotal and based upon the stories of about five people.

I agree though that the flag has taken on different meanings since the 1970's.

Skeptical Greg

3rd July 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by shanek

You're really getting apologetic here...but you ignored the basic point I was making: That most of these people believe the Confederate Cross to be racist, not because it's been "hijacked" by racist groups, but because they think the Civil War was a racist war! Go to any of those flag protests and ask the protesters why the flag is racist. They'll all bring up the Civil War. I haven't heard a single one bring up this "hijacking" thing.

Sheesh Shanek! I said " they need to be educated ".. But it is still about the ' FLAG ' as a symbol.. Do you think that will go away, once they have a deeper understanding of the Civil War?

I'm not even saying I sympathize with the people who have a problem with the flag.. ( in the sense that they are letting a ' thing ' keep them from getting on with their life.. ) If the flag issue goes away, it will be replaced by something else, because it is always ' something else ', that keeps many people from getting on with their life.

I just join Tricky in the observation, that anyone who makes a big deal about displaying the flag, and keeping it as a part of official state symbolism, seem to be making a statement about perpetuating the negative feelings that this flag has come to represent.

And yes, it shows a bigoted side of me. But I don't know how I might overcome this. I have no desire ( bigoted, and close minded ) to sit down with someone who claims they are not racially motivated and listen to why they ' say ' they are flying this flag, because I wouldn't believe them.

( I hope I'm not groveling too much re: " You're really getting apologetic here..."

but I have a lot of respect for your position on, and perception of many things..
In this case, you seem to be standing firm with your position, that people are upset about the flag for the wrong reasons, which I understand and agree with. But, people who insist on supporting that flag ( and I understand that you do not, but along with me, support their right to fly it... As I mentioned earlier, it comes in handy when identifying idiots.. ) are perpetuating the negative feelings that those poorly educated masses have nurtured for so long. Even those, (and their numbers may be substantial) who profess to be clinging to some heritage issue, while saying " I'm not like that ", are aligning themselves with the ignorant racists, who feel the flag speaks of a better time, when people knew their rightful place, and paid for it when they stepped out of line, and would like to see it that way again.. And in doing so, they are saying
" While I am truly not racist in my heart, I don't care who thinks I am ".. )

shanek

3rd July 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Do you think that will go away, once they have a deeper understanding of the Civil War?

These things usually have to wait a generation or two. The current round of foaming-at-the-mouth protestors have so much invested in the issue, so much to gain politically, so much to lose by even considering that they may be wrong that it's pretty much hopeless on their part. They're woo-woos, really.

But if we start educating people today as to what the Civil War was really about, what the flag really stands for, and what really happened with regards to the efforts to free the slaves, then these protestors will lose support from the younger generation and eventually, when they die out, they'll hopefully take their ignorant ways with them. That's how it usually happens.

And yes, it shows a bigoted side of me.

That's good; at least you acknowledge it.

Even those, (and their numbers may be substantial) who profess to be clinging to some heritage issue, while saying " I'm not like that ", are aligning themselves with the ignorant racists,

This is the very claim I keep rebutting. No, they are not aligning themselves with racists, and as I have shown, in many cases they go out of their way to distance themselves from the racists.

KelvinG

3rd July 2003, 06:47 PM

As an experiment, I think some of the folks posting on this thread should start flying the confederate flag and see how it goes. Let us all know what the reaction is from others. I'm not going to do it, but is anyone game?

shanek

3rd July 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG
As an experiment, I think some of the folks posting on this thread should start flying the confederate flag and see how it goes. Let us all know what the reaction is from others. I'm not going to do it, but is anyone game?

Considering that at least half a dozen houses on my street fly the flag, if I were to put one up it would hardly be noticed.

KelvinG

4th July 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Considering that at least half a dozen houses on my street fly the flag, if I were to put one up it would hardly be noticed.

I guess the experiment might be more interesting in other parts of the country.
Anyone in Berkeley want to give it a shot?:D

Tony

4th July 2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

Anyone in Berkeley want to give it a shot?:D

The South wasnt genocidal enough for Berkeley, they would prefer the soviet flag.

KelvinG

4th July 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Tony

The South wasnt genocidal enough for Berkeley, they would prefer the soviet flag.

Hmm, I didn't know the folks at Berkeley advocated genocide.
Gee, you learn something new everyday.
Where can I read more about this?

WMT1

7th July 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I have no desire ( bigoted, and close minded ) to sit down with someone who claims they are not racially motivated and listen to why they ' say ' they are flying this flag, because I wouldn't believe them.

Why not? :confused:

But, people who insist on supporting that flag ( and I understand that you do not, but along with me, support their right to fly it... As I mentioned earlier, it comes in handy when identifying idiots.. )

Um ... wouldn't stubbornly clinging to prejudices be a better indicator of idiocy than differences of opinion over the meaning of symbols?

Even those, (and their numbers may be substantial) who profess to be clinging to some heritage issue, while saying " I'm not like that ", are aligning themselves with the ignorant racists, who feel the flag speaks of a better time, when people knew their rightful place, and paid for it when they stepped out of line, and would like to see it that way again.. And in doing so, they are saying
" While I am truly not racist in my heart, I don't care who thinks I am ".. )

Have you actually talked to most of those making the "heritage" claim? Because if not, then what possible basis could you have for the above (rather unflattering) assessment of their intent?

Dancing David

7th July 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Tony

The South wasnt genocidal enough for Berkeley, they would prefer the soviet flag.

I take it your not talking about mental monism, now your bigotry is showing. Did Berkley sucsede from the Union?

Skeptical Greg

7th July 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Why not? :confused:

Um ... wouldn't stubbornly clinging to prejudices be a better indicator of idiocy than differences of opinion over the meaning of symbols?

I wouldn'y say it was better..

Have you actually talked to most of those making the "heritage" claim? Because if not, then what possible basis could you have for the above (rather unflattering) assessment of their intent?
I answered that, when I admitted I am prejudice regarding this issue.
However, I would be willing to listen to anyone in these forums who wish to make the ' heritage ' claim.

Tmy

7th July 2003, 08:51 AM

When I see the rebel flag I think of racism. Thast what its come to. Just as when I see a swastica I think of nazis and not "O gee look at that obscure buddist smybol, why does it offend everyone."

Just like when I see a monument to General Lee I think , "what a disgrace to have a monument to a traitor who was responsible for the deaths of 10's of thousands of Americans." Of course Im not going to shout that out loud while in downtown Richmond. CAUSE I KNOW IT WILL OFFEND PEOPLE!

shanek

7th July 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
Just like when I see a monument to General Lee I think , "what a disgrace to have a monument to a traitor who was responsible for the deaths of 10's of thousands of Americans." Of course Im not going to shout that out loud while in downtown Richmond. CAUSE I KNOW IT WILL OFFEND PEOPLE!

And because you know you'll be shouted down as the idiot you are, because it's patently untrue.

c0rbin

7th July 2003, 10:14 AM

And because you know you'll be shouted down as the idiot you are, because it's patently untrue.

If I were to diagram this sentence, I think I would find it to contradict itself.

shanek

7th July 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by c0rbin
If I were to diagram this sentence, I think I would find it to contradict itself.

Why? He made a completely idiotic statement, which anyone who's studied Lee knows to be completely untrue.

c0rbin

7th July 2003, 10:18 AM

I was just coming back to edit my remark to say that I had to read the last two posts to get your meaning.

Did you mean that it was untrue that Lee was reposnsible for thousands of deaths? Untrue that TMY would be shouted down? Untrue that he was the "idiot he [was]"?

Really, I meant nothing by it.

:D

WMT1

7th July 2003, 10:53 AM

Tmy

7th July 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by shanek

And because you know you'll be shouted down as the idiot you are, because it's patently untrue.

Its all about perception. Like how people believe that the confed flag is a symbol of heritage and not of racism.

shanek

7th July 2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by c0rbin
Did you mean that it was untrue that Lee was reposnsible for thousands of deaths?

Yes, no more so than it was true for Grant.

He also accused Lee of being a traitor, but the Union never charged Lee, or Davis for that matter, with treason because they knew that they had no Constitutional grounds to do so.

shanek

7th July 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
Its all about perception.

Oh...So if I have a perception that dowsing works, that makes it so? If I have a perception that Q-Ray bracelets work, that makes it so? Is that how it works?

Not even their political enemies called them traitors. In fact, Grant had an unflinching respect for Lee, and vice-versa.

Skeptical Greg

7th July 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Why not? :confused:

Because I am not interested in their excuses..

Um ... wouldn't stubbornly clinging to prejudices be a better indicator of idiocy than differences of opinion over the meaning of symbols?

Not in my opinion. But I can understand how some might disagree with me. There are idiots and there are idiots.

Have you actually talked to most of those making the "heritage" claim? Because if not, then what possible basis could you have for the above (rather unflattering) assessment of their intent?

Where did I address their intent? I suggested that sharing certain behaviour with racists, might make some people question their sentiments in that regard. I don't see how they could do this unknowingly, and in doing so, suggesting that they don't care. ( that they are perceived as racist ).

shanek

7th July 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Where did I address their intent? I suggested that sharing certain behaviour with racists, might make some people question their sentiments in that regard.

Well...I happen to have it on very good authority that the vast majority of white supremacists eat bread. Do you eat bread? Why? Shouldn't I question your sentiments in that regard, given that you share this behavior with racists?

Tmy

7th July 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Oh...So if I have a perception that dowsing works, that makes it so? If I have a perception that Q-Ray bracelets work, that makes it so? Is that how it works?

Not even their political enemies called them traitors. In fact, Grant had an unflinching respect for Lee, and vice-versa.

There was all the polictics and good ol boy network in the day so yeah they didnt call them traitors. But that is exactly what they were.

Abandoning your post in the army to lead another army in raising arms against your own county is not treason? Sounds text book to me.

While your at it, please explain to me why statement about Lee is "patently untrue".

c0rbin

7th July 2003, 12:26 PM

Yes, no more so than it was true for Grant.

I think his implication might be that, if Lee had not chosen to fight against his country that thousands might not have died.

Maybe...

Also, I am pretty sure that Lee not being brought up on charges of treason was Grant's doing at the point of Lee's surrender.

Skeptical Greg

7th July 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Well...I happen to have it on very good authority that the vast majority of white supremacists eat bread. Do you eat bread? Why? Shouldn't I question your sentiments in that regard, given that you share this behavior with racists?
Should you?

If you really think these two examples are similar, I don't see how I can continue to discuss this with you..

But I do thank you for piquing my interest in the Civil War..

Perhaps we will have the opportunity to dicuss other matters..

WMT1

7th July 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I have no desire ( bigoted, and close minded ) to sit down with someone who claims they are not racially motivated and listen to why they ' say ' they are flying this flag, because I wouldn't believe them.

Originally posted by WMT1
Why not? :confused:

Originally posted by Diogenes
Because I am not interested in their excuses..

That's a comment about your level of interest, which is not what I asked about. Please read the questions more carefully. Now, once again, why would you not believe them?

But, people who insist on supporting that flag ( and I understand that you do not, but along with me, support their right to fly it... As I mentioned earlier, it comes in handy when identifying idiots.. )

Um ... wouldn't stubbornly clinging to prejudices be a better indicator of idiocy than differences of opinion over the meaning of symbols?

Not in my opinion.

Yeah, you already said that. I then asked "Would you say they are about the same?", which you have not answered. Are you having trouble keeping up?

There are idiots and there are idiots.

And sadly, some people who find it easy to throw around words like "idiots" seem to drop the ball when it comes to actually explaining their use of them.

Have you actually talked to most of those making the "heritage" claim? Because if not, then what possible basis could you have for the above (rather unflattering) assessment of their intent?

Where did I address their intent?

That would be when you said:

Even those, (and their numbers may be substantial) who profess to be clinging to some heritage issue, while saying " I'm not like that ", are aligning themselves with the ignorant racists, who feel the flag speaks of a better time, when people knew their rightful place, and paid for it when they stepped out of line, and would like to see it that way again.. And in doing so, they are saying
" While I am truly not racist in my heart, I don't care who thinks I am ".. )

Now that we've cleared that up, can you take another shot at answering the questions? (This is the third go-round now, and one of them could have been answered with a simple "yes" or "no".)

I suggested that sharing certain behaviour with racists, might make some people question their sentiments in that regard.

Actually, based on some of the comments in this thread, spinning it as "question their sentiments" is sugarcoating it a bit, isn't it? In some cases, isn't it more like making accusations about those sentiments, with no interest in hearing what those being accused might have to say?

I don't see how they could do this unknowingly, and in doing so, suggesting that they don't care. ( that they are perceived as racist ).

Perceived as racist by some, not all. And they might just have made the decision that they won't let their own choices be dictated by the ignorance and/or prejudices of others. Have you considered this possibility?

Moreover, even where it is a simple case of "they don't care", so what? Would you have any problems with a guy who wanted to shave his head because he found it comfortable, and refused to reconsider that decision just because he knew some people might associate him with skinheads, and speculate that he was racist?

Skeptical Greg

7th July 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

That's a comment about your level of interest, which is not what I asked about. Please read the questions more carefully. Now, once again, why would you not believe them?

Yeah, you already said that. I then asked "Would you say they are about the same?", which you have not answered. Are you having trouble keeping up?

And sadly, some people who find it easy to throw around words like "idiots" seem to drop the ball when it comes to actually explaining their use of them.

That would be when you said:

Now that we've cleared that up, can you take another shot at answering the questions? (This is the third go-round now, and one of them could have been answered with a simple "yes" or "no".)

Actually, based on some of the comments in this thread, spinning it as "question their sentiments" is sugarcoating it a bit, isn't it? In some cases, isn't it more like making accusations about those sentiments, with no interest in hearing what those being accused might have to say?

Perceived as racist by some, not all. And they might just have made the decision that they won't let their own choices be dictated by the ignorance and/or prejudices of others. Have you considered this possibility?

Moreover, even where it is a simple case of "they don't care", so what? Would you have any problems with a guy who wanted to shave his head because he found it comfortable, and refused to reconsider that decision just because he knew some people might associate him with skinheads, and speculate that he was racist?

:rolleyes:

I'll be following the thread to see if you actually contribute any substance, and consider replying if I'm interested.

WMT1

7th July 2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
:rolleyes:

I'll be following the thread to see if you actually contribute any substance, and consider replying if I'm interested.

Given the nature of the forum, asking questions that expose the problems in your position is more than enough "substance", thanks. And your intellectual cowardice is hereby noted.

(And you were talking about someone else making excuses? :rolleyes: )

shanek

7th July 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Abandoning your post in the army to lead another army in raising arms against your own county is not treason? Sounds text book to me.

They SECEDED FROM THE UNION!!!!!! Why don't you get that? They seceded, a right of the states that NO ONE had questioned until then!!!

While your at it, please explain to me why statement about Lee is "patently untrue".

Already have. Learn to read.

shanek

7th July 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin

I think his implication might be that, if Lee had not chosen to fight against his country that thousands might not have died.

Maybe...

If you'll read Lee's writings, you'll see that he was a very reluctant warrior. He only fought because he felt it was in the best interests of the liberty of his home country, which he considered to be Virginia.

Also, I am pretty sure that Lee not being brought up on charges of treason was Grant's doing at the point of Lee's surrender.

Still doesn't explain why Davis wasn't charged with it. They even had him in jail!

shanek

7th July 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Should you?

No; obviously, you shouldn't.

If you really think these two examples are similar, I don't see how I can continue to discuss this with you..

It's the same idea. You're using a correlation between two different groups to try and equate them.

Skeptic

7th July 2003, 06:47 PM

"The Daily Show" said it best:

"Some people say the confederate flag is a proud symbol of the southern heritage. Some people say it is a symbol of racism and opression The truth, of course, is that is a proud symbol of the southern heritage of racism and opression."

Skeptical Greg

7th July 2003, 07:47 PM

WMT1

8th July 2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
"The Daily Show" said it best: "Some people say the confederate flag is a proud symbol of the southern heritage. Some people say it is a symbol of racism and opression The truth, of course, is that is a proud symbol of the southern heritage of racism and opression."

This is probably the first time I've seen anyone describe a symbol of a heritage of racism and oppression as something to be proud of, so doesn't that reflect poorly on "The Daily Show", and anyone who agrees with such sentiments? Are you sure you've thought this through?

Skeptical Greg

8th July 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

This is probably the first time I've seen anyone describe a symbol of a heritage of racism and oppression as something to be proud of, so doesn't that reflect poorly on "The Daily Show", and anyone who agrees with such sentiments? Are you sure you've thought this through?

Are you familiar with "The Daily Show" ?

WMT1

8th July 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Are you familiar with "The Daily Show" ?

"Familiar" might be overstating things a bit, but I've run across it a few times.

(Does this mean you're going to get around to answering my questions at some point?)

Skeptical Greg

8th July 2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

"Familiar" might be overstating things a bit, but I've run across it a few times.

I wanted to take this a little at a time..
So, since you are a little shy of ' familiar ', with the program, in your brief perusal,did you discern that it was satire?

(Does this mean you're going to get around to answering my questions at some point?)

No. I was just addressing a new tangent in the discussion.

" I do not wish to discuss this with you ( any further ) . " Is an answer. Whether it is accepted or not, is of little concern to me, in this case.

Of course, you are free to ask any question you like, as many times as you like. If I can understand the question ( which has been a problem for me in the past ), I will try to answer as I see fit.

tamiO

8th July 2003, 07:13 AM

Where I live, the sight of the rebel flag is a clue and is useful in identifying possibly dangerous hicks.

Its just one of many clues as to what sort of behavior to expect . A pick-up truck, a rusty trailer, blaring country music, children beating trees with 2x4s in the yard, etc., are all clues.

If I were to go out to a club with a black guy around here, it would be inviting trouble, but wouldn't guarantee it.

If we pulled into the parking lot and saw rusty pick-up trucks with rebel flags plastered all over them, we would be incredibly stupid to go on in and have a drink.

If the goal is education and communication, then I feel displaying the rebel flag is counter-productive. How many people are going to walk up to you and ask, "Are you a racist or are you trying to educate the public as to the true history of the civil war?"

Skeptical Greg

8th July 2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by tamiO
...................snip

If we pulled into the parking lot and saw rusty pick-up trucks with rebel flags plastered all over them, we would be incredibly stupid to go on in and have a drink.

If the goal is education and communication, then I feel displaying the rebel flag is counter-productive.

Ahhh! But you just gave us a fine example of how informative and educational the flag can be..........

What if those people in the club felt that way ( racist ), and didn't bother to let you know, by decorating their pick-up trucks?;)

Tricky

8th July 2003, 07:32 AM

WMT1

8th July 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
So, since you are a little shy of ' familiar ', with the program, in your brief perusal,did you discern that it was satire?

Of course. Is that supposed to indicate that they didn't really mean it? And if so, what do you suppose Skeptic was agreeing with?

" I do not wish to discuss this with you ( any further ) . " Is an answer.

Yes, it is the answer of someone who's been backed into a corner by his own statements, and wants to pass off his evasiveness as disinterest.

Of course, you are free to ask any question you like, as many times as you like.

I have, and will continue to do so. It's proven to be a useful tool for exposing views that are poorly thought out, especially in a forum like this, where questions should be welcomed. A pattern of non-responsiveness to reasonable questions about one's own statements sometimes says more about their lack of confidence in those statements than if they actually tried to answer them.

If I can understand the question ( which has been a problem for me in the past ), I will try to answer as I see fit.

And if you cannot understand the question, do you ask for clarification, or simply ignore it?

Skeptical Greg

8th July 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Of course. Is that supposed to indicate that they didn't really mean it? And if so, what do you suppose Skeptic was agreeing with?

I agreed also.. Apparently you do not understand what ' satire' means.. It doesn't mean " completely without merit "..

And if you cannot understand the question, do you ask for clarification, or simply ignore it?
Whichever I decide to do.

c0rbin

8th July 2003, 08:54 AM

Still doesn't explain why Davis wasn't charged with it.

Because Lincoln was of the same mind.

Andrew Johnson was not.

Hence the great tragedy for the south at Ford theater.

Tricky

8th July 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Yes, no more so than it was true for Grant.

He also accused Lee of being a traitor, but the Union never charged Lee, or Davis for that matter, with treason because they knew that they had no Constitutional grounds to do so.
Actually, Davis was charged with treason (http://www.bellenet.com/jefferson.html)
From 1865 to 1867 (Davis) was imprisoned at Fortress Monroe, Virginia. Davis was indicted for treason in 1866 but the next year was released on a bond of $100,000 signed by the American newspaper publisher Horace Greeley and other influential Northerners. In 1868 the federal government dropped the case against him.

WMT1

8th July 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
So, since you are a little shy of ' familiar ', with the program, in your brief perusal,did you discern that it was satire?

Originally posted by WMT1
Of course. Is that supposed to indicate that they didn't really mean it? And if so, what do you suppose Skeptic was agreeing with?

Originally posted by Diogenes
I agreed also..

Then you should have no trouble explaining just exactly what you were agreeing with, and defending that agreement. Of course, given the nature of some of your recent responses, I won't be holding my breath.

Apparently you do not understand what ' satire' means..

It's hardly surprising that you might share Tricky's tendency to be condescending when it's not warranted. But just to clear things up, my questions are intended to determine what you think it means.

It doesn't mean " completely without merit "..

So, did they mean what they said or not? It's a simple question.

And if you cannot understand the question, do you ask for clarification, or simply ignore it?

Whichever I decide to do.

Apparently that does not include trying to be taken seriously as someone who can hold his own in a serious discussion.

WMT1

8th July 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Have you actually talked to most of those making the "heritage" claim? Because if not, then what possible basis could you have for the above (rather unflattering) assessment of their intent?

Originally posted by Tricky
I invite you to share with us some of the wit and wisdom of those making this claim in my brand new Southern Heritage and Tradition thread.

Are you under the impression that I should be familiar with their "wit and wisdom" for some reason? Sorry, but your invitation doesn't make much sense, and it doesn't seem to have much relevance to my purpose in this discussion anyway, which is to challenge the thinking behind some of the statements that have been made. If you can come up with a more specific line of inquiry about anything I've posted, I'll try to address it.

Tricky

8th July 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Are you under the impression that I should be familiar with their "wit and wisdom" for some reason? Sorry, but your invitation doesn't make much sense, and it doesn't seem to have much relevance to my purpose in this discussion anyway, which is to challenge the thinking behind some of the statements that have been made. If you can come up with a more specific line of inquiry about anything I've posted, I'll try to address it.
It is pretty simple, W. Since you and others are proposing that the Confederate flag stands for other things besides racism, I would like to hear what they are. Specifically, what cultural behaviors and bits of heritage does it stand for? If you do not know of any, then how can you make such an assertion?

However, I would appreciate it if you use the other thread so as to not hijack this one.

Skeptical Greg

8th July 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

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

In case you haven't noticed, you haven't contributed any information, or personal insight to this thread..

Your entire discourse has been about getting other people to explain what they mean.

I don't feel I am the only one in this conversation who recognizes this.

Some of us are managing to exchange ideas without disecting every thought and emotion behind them, while the gist of the debate remains clear to those who care to continue it.

Just so you won't feel I have stepped away, or am pondering any of your questions before answering, that is not the case. I am ignoring you..

As I said before.. I will be on the alert for any future substantive posts, from you or anyone else, and comment as I feel so inclined.

Tmy

8th July 2003, 11:55 AM

What flag did the Union fly during the Civil War? Did it include the stars representing the southern states?

Shaun from Scotland

8th July 2003, 11:58 AM

I have just watched a programme over here about the unsavoury role Scots-Americans have played in the clan. Indeed, it showed a Klan meeting which had a large Saltire and Rampant Lion in the background, as well as the Confederate falg (which seems to be based on the saltire.

It's just a flag it seems to me. If flying flags which have been used by Southern whites is racist, then my avatar is racist as hell....

Tricky

8th July 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
What flag did the Union fly during the Civil War? Did it include the stars representing the southern states?
It appears there were several (http://www.patriotic-flags.com/american/historical/), but yes, they all included stars for the southern states, for example:
http://www.patriotic-flags.com/american/historical/us-1861.gif

shanek

8th July 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin
Because Lincoln was of the same mind.

Andrew Johnson was not.

Hence the great tragedy for the south at Ford theater.

Granted that the assassination of Lincoln was a very bad thing for the South, but there was absolutely no justification for charging Davis with treason.

WMT1

8th July 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
It is pretty simple, W. Since you and others are proposing that the Confederate flag stands for other things besides racism, I would like to hear what they are.

It doesn't stand for anything in particular to me, at least not since high school. And as I pointed out before, what it meant to me then, as well as to all of my friends at the time, was loyalty to the high school itself. Its themes were largely based on the Confederacy, and the flag was one of its symbols.

Of course, recalling this time gives me the benefit of a perspective you apparently do not share, since it helps me understand what it might be like for one group of people to grow fond of a symbol for non-racist reasons, only to then have others insist that it is racist for anyone to display it. (I could even understand that some people might choose to display it specifically to protest such arrogance.)

And in the years since that time, I have also encountered many people who revere that flag for different (but still non-racist) reasons. Their sentiments seem to be based primarily on loyalty and/or affection for a region, not totally unlike some people around here who display the Texas flag out of loyalty and/or affection specifically for the state. And in a couple of cases, they were simply Civil War buffs, one of whom was a teacher.

Specifically, what cultural behaviors and bits of heritage does it stand for? If you do not know of any, then how can you make such an assertion?

I've made no claims "specifically" about "cultural behaviors" and "bits of heritage" in the first place, so which "assertion" are you asking about here? This part of your inquiry doesn't make sense.

However, I would appreciate it if you use the other thread so as to not hijack this one.

Um ... have you noticed the title of this thread?

shanek

8th July 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
What flag did the Union fly during the Civil War? Did it include the stars representing the southern states?

For the most part, this one:

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/35star.gif

It included the Southern states because the official stance of the Union was that the southern states were US states in rebellion, not states of a separate country.

WMT1

8th July 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
In case you haven't noticed, you haven't contributed any information, or personal insight to this thread..

:rolleyes: Yeah, your contributions and insights have been soooo impressive.

Your entire discourse has been about getting other people to explain what they mean.

So what? Has the nature of this forum escaped your notice? Perhaps the "don't ask me any questions about my opinion" forum might be more appropriate for you?

I don't feel I am the only one in this conversation who recognizes this.

Probably true, but it only tends to be a concern to those who have trouble defending the views they express.

Some of us are managing to exchange ideas without disecting every thought and emotion behind them,

Now there's a nice, over-the-top spin for trying to justify your evasiveness. Incidentally, most self-respecting skeptics understand the role such dissection can play in exposing the problems with someone's viewpoint.

while the gist of the debate remains clear to those who care to continue it.

Debate? Sorry, but you're giving yourself too much credit. Someone engaging in a debate doesn't usually make excuses for dodging questions about the statements they make.

Just so you won't feel I have stepped away, or am pondering any of your questions before answering, that is not the case. I am ignoring you..

Not to mention pulling out all the stops to try to make it appear as if you're taking the high road by doing so. How proud you must be.

As I said before.. I will be on the alert for any future substantive posts, from you or anyone else, and comment as I feel so inclined.

And as I said before, asking questions that expose the problems in your position is more than enough "substance". Most self-respecting skeptics understand this too. And as I also said before, your intellectual cowardice has been noted.

Tmy

8th July 2003, 12:36 PM

How do you think those heritage fowlks would react to an Africanized version of the flag?http://www.africana.com/images/articles/img0641_447.jpg

c0rbin

8th July 2003, 12:38 PM

Shaun from Scotland, The "Stars and Bars" is based on the St. Andrews Cross (as seen in the Union Jack) and the stars of the seceeding states.

Though, as this thread mentions, the Stars and Bars are not the flag of the Confederated States of America, but the flag used in battle first reported seen on the field at Shiloh born by an Alabama regiment (?).

Skeptical Greg

8th July 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

And as I also said before, your intellectual cowardice has been noted.

Yes, I understood you the first time.. But you do well to remind me.. I didn't think about it for long.

shanek

8th July 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
It doesn't stand for anything in particular to me, at least not since high school. And as I pointed out before, what it meant to me then, as well as to all of my friends at the time, was loyalty to the high school itself. Its themes were largely based on the Confederacy, and the flag was one of its symbols.

Sounds like the High School on the other side of my home county. Their mascot was the Rebels, and their marching band marched in authentic Confederate Army uniforms and carried the Confederate Cross...until the PC crowd moved in and made them change everything.

(BTW, there were many blacks who were proud to march in that band. They were among the loudest protestors of the change since the politicos pretended they were doing it for their benefit.)

shanek

8th July 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
How do you think those heritage fowlks would react to an Africanized version of the flag?http://www.africana.com/images/articles/img0641_447.jpg

Kind of a weird color scheme (and the stars are a bit squashed), but I got no problem with it. Whose flag is it?

shanek

8th July 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin
Shaun from Scotland, The "Stars and Bars" is based on the St. Andrews Cross (as seen in the Union Jack) and the stars of the seceeding states.

True but dumb story: When I went to college at St. Andrews College in Laurinburg, NC (that's the section of the state initially settled by the Scots; in fact, it's in Scotland County) the college flag was the flag of Scotland, a white St. Andrews cross on a blue field. I had one on my front bumper, and you don't know how many people I ran into who complained that I had that awful Confederate flag on the front of my car! :rolleyes:

(BTW, in my experience, whenever a controversy in my neck of the woods has arisen, there always seems to be more white people protesting the flag than black. I have no idea what that means...)

Skeptical Greg

8th July 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by shanek

.........

(BTW, in my experience, whenever a controversy in my neck of the woods has arisen, there always seems to be more white people protesting the flag than black. I have no idea what that means...)

I think you do.. My thoughts on this may surprise you.. No time to compose now.. But I will follow up.... ( put your guess/es in a sealed envelope please.. to be compared with actual answers later.. )

P.S. I am really with you on the Tax thing. I need to take a closer look at your site...

WMT1

9th July 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
And as I also said before, your intellectual cowardice has been noted.

Originally posted by Diogenes
Yes, I understood you the first time.. But you do well to remind me.. I didn't think about it for long.

Translation: "If I continue to project disinterest, maybe anyone not following too closely won't notice that cowardice."

Tricky

9th July 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Translation: "If I continue to project disinterest, maybe anyone not following too closely won't notice that cowardice."
I imagine it is because Diogenes does not to turn this into a mud wrestling brawl. Calling people names does nothing to further rational debate.

WMT1

9th July 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
I imagine it is because Diogenes does not to turn this into a mud wrestling brawl.

As usual, you don't appear to have thought this through. Probably a forest/trees kind of thing.

What Diogenes does not want to do is to simply answer the questions being asked of him, despite being the one who initiated the dialogue - twice. So where do you get the idea that answering those questions would risk turning anything into a "mud wrestling brawl", or that this would be his concern?

You guys do come up with some creative ways to try to spin evasiveness as taking the high road, I'll give you that. :rolleyes:

Calling people names does nothing to further rational debate.

Actually, it can be useful for identification purposes. It gets a bad rap because so many people tend to be careless when engaging in it. What is important is whether it is done accurately, and whether one is prepared to defend that accuracy.

Incidentally, is it your position that evasiveness is an effective way to further rational debate? :confused:

Tricky

9th July 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
As usual, you don't appear to have thought this through. Probably a forest/trees kind of thing.
You see, WMT, this is just the sort of thing that makes me avoid engaging you in discussion. Let's just face it, we don't like each other's style of argument. You don't like my broad, "hand waving" statements, and I don't care for your proclivity for the invective. So, like Diogenes, I just ignore them and carry own. Call it cowardice if you like, and indeed I am not a fan of angry fights, but I disagree that calumny ever serves a useful purpose in debates, regardless of how much you think you can justify it.

WMT1

9th July 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Let's just face it, we don't like each other's style of argument.

Can you identify what traits you don't like about mine - you know, traits that don't also apply to yours?

You don't like my broad, "hand waving" statements,

Actually, what I don't like, particularly in a forum like this, are statements of any kind that the individuals expressing them are not prepared to defend.

and I don't care for your proclivity for the invective.

Like calling people "racist"? :eek:

Call it cowardice if you like, and indeed I am not a fan of angry fights,

Then why do you pick them by calling people racist? Running from a fight you picked is what makes it cowardice.

but I disagree that calumny ever serves a useful purpose in debates, regardless of how much you think you can justify it.

Again, wouldn't calling people "racist" come closer to that description than anything I've posted? :confused:

Come to think of it, isn't there a bit of hypocrisy, or at least irony, in implying that I am guilty of it, but without citing any examples?

You might want to take a look in the mirror with some of these comments. Kinda looks like we have yet another response from you that you didn't proofread enough before posting, huh?

Incidentally, I'd at least appreciate your answer to the straightforward and relevant question I asked at the end of my last post. Once again, is it your position that evasiveness is an effective way to further rational debate?