Confederate Flag (stickers etc...boo)

[Easy Mac]

well, thats what they're saying now... but i think they've cave pretty soon.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Your clarification is a more cogent argument against my position. However, Article IV Section 3 makes no mention of any "purchase" requirement in its scope. Furthermore, the entire Section clearly shows to me that Congress was to be consulted regarding all changes in statehood.

I would agree when it comes to the establishment of states within the Union. There is, however, no mention of the withdrawal of states. I guess what it comes down to, for me, is that when I read the word "territory" in the Constitution, I think of an entity which is not yet a state and not the lands of the United States as a whole. It is not specifically mentioned that the land making up the states themselves is under the control of the federal government, and I tend towards a narrow interpretation of federal powers.

Jefferson:

"The true theory of our constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very unexpensive one - a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants ..."

"It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State governments are superior to the Federal or the Federal to the States. The people, to whom all authority belongs, have divided the powers of government into two distinct departments, the leading characters of which are foreign and domestic; and they have appointed for each a distinct set of functionaries. These they have made coordinate, checking and balancing each other like the three cardinal departments in the individual States; each equally supreme as to the powers delegated to itself, and neither authorized ultimately to decide what belongs to itself or to its coparcener in government. As independent, in fact, as different nations."

As for your point about contract law, it does have merit. I would suggest, however, that the idea that a state or colony has the right to withdraw from a government they feel is treating them unfairly is a bedrock principle of early American politics.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's because they believe you'll cave in. Georgia isn't getting any serious crap anymore because they already know we've got enough politicians who'll sell their souls for a few pieces of silver.

What SC, and all the rest, should do is tell the NCAA to shove their tournaments squarely up their misguided asses ... but there's a lack of honor & character in a lot of places, which is what these organizations are banking on.

Again, how is this different from the swastika Jon ? Fuck, the swastika is an ancient Indian religious symbol, from about a thousand years before Hitler and his ilk adopted it as aryan symbol. At least there is some historical grounding. Are you of the belief that the confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery and outright racism, or are you arguing from a free choice perspective (which I agree with, but you're no "freedom" for the sake of freedom advocate by your own accord) ?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

And why was South Carolina given so much shit for having the flag on their state house capitol?

The South Carolina flag thing always reminds me of that hilarious skit from the Chris Rock Show years back when he was proposing new state flags. The options I recall were:

1. A flag that read "South Carolina is OKKK"

2. A flag that was just a picture of a Saltine cracker.

3. The same flag, but with the Stars of the Confederacy replaced with the "Stars of The WB".

I think Option 3 ended up winning the pole.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

Jefferson:

Here's a problem. Jefferson was NOT at the Constitutional Convention and wasn't involved in the debates. He, also, was initially opposed to the Constitution. He's not a good source to go to for what the Constitution means.

Anyway, on the topic, when I see a Confederate flag, I see it as no different than burning an American flag. Furthermore, for all the bluster, I'm sure that no thinking Southerner would want to split off from the US. They'd realize that they are the prime beneficiaries of the union as it is (they get the most back for every $1 they pay - and most of that money comes from the NorthEast).

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Come to the South some time and I think you'll get a completely different vibe for whether the North or the South was acting in a treasonous manner.

Agreed. My wife's 87 year old grandma is from the South. She lives in Jacksonville now, but her family is in South Carolina and has been in the region since the 1700's. She's a Daughter of the American Revolution and a Daughter of the Confederacy. I was talking with her about that Civil War documentary (you know the one) and she said "Everytime I watch that I just kept help but think, 'Maybe we'll win this time!'."

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Here's a problem. Jefferson was NOT at the Constitutional Convention and wasn't involved in the debates. He, also, was initially opposed to the Constitution. He's not a good source to go to for what the Constitution means.

I realize that he wasn't at the convention, but I don't believe that fact totally invalidates everything he has to say on the matter. Adams wasn't there either, but that doesn't stop the Federalists from rolling him out every time there is a serious debate on state's rights.

[Raiders Army]

This thread started as a pebble down the mountain...it has turned into something a little more than that. Interesting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Again, how is this different from the swastika Jon ? Fuck, the swastika is an ancient Indian religious symbol, from about a thousand years before Hitler and his ilk adopted it as aryan symbol. At least there is some historical grounding. Are you of the belief that the confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery and outright racism, or are you arguing from a free choice perspective (which I agree with, but you're no "freedom" for the sake of freedom advocate by your own accord) ?

Heck, I'm not even arguing ... I'm just stating fact

I'm an ardent supporter of the display of the flag(s) in question than because there's far more represented by them than "slavery" or "outright racism" -- enough that those negatives don't amount to 0.0000001% of what I see in them, outweighing them by infinity + 1. Point blank, I'd defend any of the flags of the Confederacy by any means necessary and/or available if they were disrespected in my presence, up to & including death. That's not intended as any sort of dramatic statement or anything, it's just the best phrasing I can find to explain how dearly I value them (if you've got better phrasing, feel free to sub it in there). Maybe that makes me a hyphenated-American, because I hold them in equal regard at minimum.

If someone else holds the same feeling about a swastika, they're welcome to it & is free to behave accordingly AFAIC, but that ain't my fight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Furthermore, for all the bluster, I'm sure that no thinking Southerner would want to split off from the US.

You'd be dead wrong on that point, trust me.

[dawgfan]

If we grant Jefferson some authority on the matter of consitutional interpretation, then this quote seems to me to indicate an argument against the legality of secession:

The true theory of our constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations.

Seems to me that Jefferson's arguments of the states acting as one with respect to foreign affairs negates the idea of the states seceding being legal, as that would make them a foreign nation themselves.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Seems to me that Jefferson's arguments of the states acting as one with respect to foreign affairs negates the idea of the states seceding being legal, as that would make them a foreign nation themselves.

Interesting point. There is another passage from him, which I don't have handy at the moment, where he speaks of the federal government as "our foreign government". I'm not sure which side that supports, but your statement made me think of it.

Edited because I can't spell.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm an ardent supporter of the display of the flag(s) in question than because there's far more represented by them than "slavery" or "outright racism" -- enough that those negatives don't amount to 0.0000001% of what I see in them, outweighing them by infinity + 1.

Just infinty + 1? And you would fight to the death for that? I would at the very least expect it to outweigh all that stuff by infinity X infinity to the infinite power + 1.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Alymar

I don't believe that fact totally invalidates everything he has to say on the matter.

In terms of interpreting the Constitution it does. Jefferson wanted to weaken the Constitution as much as possible, even when he spoke of what it 'meant'.

Now if you quoted Madison, that would work.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You'd be dead wrong on that point, trust me.

I DID say "thinking" didn't I?

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Come to the South some time and I think you'll get a completely different vibe for whether the North or the South was acting in a treasonous manner.

I've spent plenty of time in "the South" and I live in Texas.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I preemptively addressed that question in post #88 of this thread. Also, I do not hold the Stars and Bars - the presumptive National Flag of the Confederacy - to be a symbol of treason against the United States. I hold the battle flags of the Confederacy to be such.

Thanks. I missed that, obviously.

I fail to see the significance of the difference between the national flag and battle flag, actually one of several battle flag designs that existed. The battle flag was really just a military convenience for the sake of visibility.

And, bottom line, I fail to see what the big uproar is about. My opinion on the Confederate flag today is that it should come down from statehouses and the such, but that it is a legitimate historical artifact for display in the context of historical displays and museums. I think those who make an issue of the Confederate flag, otoh, could better spend their time on more constructive issues. At this point it seems to do little good for anyone except as a way for civil rights hucksters to raise money and get publicity. But then everything offends somebody these days.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Just infinty + 1? And you would fight to the death for that? I would at the very least expect it to outweigh all that stuff by infinity X infinity to the infinite power + 1.

I've had a very long couple of weeks with work, I'm tired, I'm not above going an easy route to make a point or two.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

On a separate but related issue, whenever I see any kind of bumper sticker on a car, I can't help but think I'd never want to loan the owner of that car any of my property. I've never quite understood the willingness of people to ruin their cars. I refuse to even allow the dealership to put its stupid insignia on my trunk.

I'm exactly with you. Bumber sticker mentality reeks of something that says "my intelligence can be summed up in a few words".

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JW

What a fascinating argument. Many of you are making the mistake of layering today's understandings on people who lived and died a century and a half ago. Many of our understandings of what our country is about are a result of the Civil War, which was in part a culmination of the argument between two very different ideas of what the United States was. In addition to slavery, which was the catalyst that sparked the war, these two competing visions of America were in direct conflict and had been from the very beginning of the nation. The war decided the issue of slavery and the very idea of secession as a legitimate mechanism. But by the reasoning of some of you, the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Did we not rebel against Britain?

As for the Confederate flag itself, it is quite unfortunate that the Confederate battle flag was usurped by racists and bigots as a symbol of their racism. That flag is forever tainted by that association.

We had sorely missed your wisdom and reasoned historical perspective around here, JW. Welcome back.

JW's comments are also related to why I react the way do in political threads in thinking that all of this current shit is only a recent phenomenon. One only has to read about pre-Civil War politics and attitudes (or immediately after the Civil War) to gain a little perspective. The biggest fallacy many, many makes is, as JW said, arrogantly putting our current values and limited understandings to the past.

[WSUCougar]

JW, in my opinion you get the "Most Reasonable Posts in a Tinderbox Thread" Award. Nicely done.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The biggest fallacy many, many makes is, as JW said, arrogantly putting our current values and limited understandings to the past.

But to go too far in the other direction is just as fallacious. It is just as arrogant to ignore the fact that culture is not static. For example, our language changes over time: Chaucer is less intelligible to us with each passing year. Words like "sexy" or "uptight" don't mean what they did 50 years ago.

Our symbols develop different connotations too. As has been mentioned previously, the swastika has a vastly different meaning now than it did 100 years ago. The Confederate Flag has developed multiple connotations over time aside from it's original purpose of symbolizing the CSA: some positive (a symbol of historical rememberence honoring one's ancestors), some negative (a symbol of racism), and some that could be considered either, depending on your point of view (the flag as a symbol of protest against the federal government). To hearken to the past meanings while ignoring the present seems rather dismissive. One cannot get a full understanding of the symbolism of the Confederate flag in this manner--whatever the flag's meaning was in the past, the flag means different things to different people today, and there is no getting around that.

As for JW's counter about the American flag being just as treasonous (if the "Confederate flag symbolizes treason" people extend their argument to this context): I would have no problems taking the argument to the logical conclusion and saying that the American flag can be considered a symbol of treason since, as another poster mentioned, most revolutions imply treason. The key difference was that the American revolution was successful, the Confederate war for indendence was not...

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I've spent plenty of time in "the South" and I live in Texas.

I said "South", not Texas. I'm pretty sure you can be killed in Texas for calling it the south.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I'm exactly with you. Bumber sticker mentality reeks of something that says "my intelligence can be summed up in a few words".

Unless it's a 3 or an 8. Then the bar is generally much lower than that.

[Buccaneer]

Klingleware, I understand your point. However, I counter with that too many actions (as well as things that are praised or criticized) are done in the name of progress - whether socially, culturally or technologically - whereas they would actually not be the case, historically-speaking. A short-sighted or short-term view of things, if you will. A good example would be all of the politically-motivated "chicken little" cries we've been hearing in the past 40 years. We like to think of ourselves (and the laws and rules we make) as making things better but much of the motivation is for the short-term and for self-gratification that they would end up being detrimental in the end...all because we chose not learn the lessons and perspectives of history.

So your point about values (and symbologies) changing is apt but one should be wary to think that somehow we have improved upon them.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The biggest fallacy many, many makes is, as JW said, arrogantly putting our current values and limited understandings to the past.

I think I am missing your point here, Bucc. What values are you talking about? I think it's perfectly acceptable, for example, to look back at slavery and say that was not a good thing. Our current values (slavery is bad) are superior to certain folks' former values (slavery is fine). I don't think that is arrogant at all. It's just plain right. I can't see how our values on slavery and race have been anything but an improvement over where they were 150 years ago.

I don't think you're arguing the contrary, but I am just not sure what this "fallacy" has to do with the Confederate flag. Or are you talking about the whole treason aspect of the debate which I really don't care about. I never really considered the Civil War to be a treasonous act on the South. They thought the country should be run one way, the North thought it should be run another, they had it out, the North won.

[Adamski47]

Ok so I lied, I had to check one last time!

Who said I was a student? Not sure where that came from...maybe an outdated profile. That typo did rule, sorry I was on my way to work.

I am not afraid to discuss income. I don't see the point but ok: Right now I am making about $41,000 annually and after finishing my masters degree in administration (part-time work in progress) will be making (If I had it today) $105,000 based on 4 years of work experience. I work 160 days a year about 6-7 hours a day M-F. I'm 25 years old. I live in Chicago, IL. But basically, yes I make around $40k a year when it's all said and done. I am not ashamed of that at all. I live my days to the fullest and have achieved so much in my life that I am thankful for which goes far and beyond and numerical figure anyone can throw in my face.

None of this changes the fact that I think that ridiculous sticker/flag stands for nothing but uneducated shoeless mutants.

[Adamski47]

Uh oh, looks like Roscoe is about to write his rebutle (been in this thread for a while now...)

We agree to disagree.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Adamski47

I don't see the point but ...

I'll go slow for you.

You are a #### fool if you think that piece of #### flag stands for anything. Get a job and move out of your mom's basement please.

That's the point, that's why it became relevant to your comment ... because you foolishly injected something that has nothing to do with the topic itself & you went down a dead-end in the process.

Here's a newsflash for you Sparky: some of those "uneducated shoeless mutants" make more money in a year than you're going to make in a decade, rendering you far closer to "mom's basement" than they are. You threw a stone at your own glass house, and that's just stupid.

Look, here's the thing -- There's nothing wrong with your income, your profession, whatever. I've got no intrinsic gripe about them, have no particular interest in them, and minus your comment, the subject wouldn't have crossed my mind. But you let your biases & prejudices lead you down a path you shouldn't have gone down, because reality doesn't back it up. If you want to wander around in ignorance, have at it, I sure can't stop you but I'll offer some free advice anyway: If this bothers you enough to post about it, then I think "enemy" would be a fair description of those on the opposite side of it from you. So "Know Thy Enemy", don't settle for making assumptions that miss the mark so widely.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Adamski47

Uh oh, looks like Roscoe is about to write his rebutle (been in this thread for a while now...)

The phone rang & it slowed the process considerably.

[Buccaneer]

Honolulu Blue, I've got to go but I'll make a quick reply and then I'll elaborate tomorrow. Think about how we had to end slavery in this country - does the end justify the means? Are we then willing to do the same for the millions of slaves that are held in bondage in the world right now? Where are the abolitionists of the 1850s and 1860s? Or how about the thought that all we have done is traded one form of slavery for another? One can always look at a specific example (like a group of people) but history teaches us to look at everything, esp. in its context.

[Adamski47]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll go slow for you.



That's the point, that's why it became relevant to your comment ... because you foolishly injected something that has nothing to do with the topic itself & you went down a dead-end in the process.

Here's a newsflash for you Sparky: some of those "uneducated shoeless mutants" make more money in a year than you're going to make in a decade, rendering you far closer to "mom's basement" than they are. You threw a stone at your own glass house, and that's just stupid.

Look, here's the thing -- There's nothing wrong with your income, your profession, whatever. I've got no intrinsic gripe about them, have no particular interest in them, and minus your comment, the subject wouldn't have crossed my mind. But you let your biases & prejudices lead you down a path you shouldn't have gone down, because reality doesn't back it up. If you want to wander around in ignorance, have at it, I sure can't stop you but I'll offer some free advice anyway: If this bothers you enough to post about it, then I think "enemy" would be a fair description of those on the opposite side of it from you. So "Know Thy Enemy", don't settle for making assumptions that miss the mark so widely.

No, this guy lived in his parents basement trust me. This is why it has everything to do with the topic. I've never looked at someone I've held any respect for and noticed them having a confederate flag on their car, forearm or front lawn whatever. I simply find it sick and anyone who supports it likewise. Period. Who the hell supports what that flag stands for? There is a realistic quantity of these people? I've only scanned most of these posts.

Look, someone your age should be in bed with their wife this time of night. She misses you. Or am I totally off on that too?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Honolulu Blue, I've got to go but I'll make a quick reply and then I'll elaborate tomorrow. Think about how we had to end slavery in this country - does the end justify the means? Are we then willing to do the same for the millions of slaves that are held in bondage in the world right now? Where are the abolitionists of the 1850s and 1860s? Or how about the thought that all we have done is traded one form of slavery for another? One can always look at a specific example (like a group of people) but history teaches us to look at everything, esp. in its context.

Yes. I do believe the ends justified the means. Completely.

There are abolitionists out there. There are some in our country right niw fighting to end the slavery the exists around the world. They are doing all they can. Do I think we should go to war to stop slavery in other countries? No. I don't. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of morality and values. And I think, for the most part, we do.

How have "we" (we being Americans?) traded one form of slavery for another? Do you really think there is any correlation between how pre-Civil War slaves (no right to vote, no right to own property, no right to families, etc., etc.) and how "we" as Americans live now?

I do look forward to your elaborations tomorrow, Bucc. I usually can follow you pretty clearly but I think there is just a disconnect between us right now. Could be do to the half bottle of wine I had with a nice, hearty dinner.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Adamski47

No, this guy lived in his parents basement trust me.

I always thought "living in parents' basement" cracks were reserved for folks with "Starfleet Academy" bumper stickers.

[Adamski47]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I always thought "living in parents' basement" cracks were reserved for folks with "Starfleet Academy" bumper stickers.

haha

[thesloppy]

This thread is totally gay awesome!

Adamski: Everybody I see driving around with a confederate flag is retarded and poor.
JIMGA: The flag ROOLZ, the south roolz, everybody where you come from is retarded. Also, you are poor. Especially when compared to me.

Apparently it's lost on both of you that you've just had a very heated agreement, since anybody that Adamski sees driving around with a confederate flag is likely in the same half of the country, and therefore a poor retard by both parties standards. Let's all come together with love and respect, and realize that even if we may have differing reasons, we all agree that anybody driving around Chicago with a confederate flag on their car is a poverty stricken, developmentally disabled douchebag.

[Raiders Army]

I make seven figures per year...counting the numbers after the decimal.

[Subby]

In most cases, I would say that reasonable people don't judge others by appearance. It is both shallow and shortsighted to make value judgements about others based on such limited information.

With very few exceptions, we are all worthy of respect on some level - and I think that you need a lot more information about someone - beyond a bumper sticker or tattoo or flag - before you can deem them ripe for scorn and derision.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I said "South", not Texas. I'm pretty sure you can be killed in Texas for calling it the south.

Which is exactly why I differentiated the two. However, in case you're not aware, Texas has a healthy population of those that consider themselves Southerners. Even Austin, the liberal outpost in the State, has a high school nicknamed the Rebels that uses the generic Confederate battle flag as its symbol at games.

As to your question JW, I have already explained why I have the difference of opinion between the Stars and Bars and the battle flags. One was flown as a symbol of wishing to be a new nation. One was flown as a symbol of actively engaging in warfare against the United States.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Klingleware, I understand your point. However, I counter with that too many actions (as well as things that are praised or criticized) are done in the name of progress - whether socially, culturally or technologically - whereas they would actually not be the case, historically-speaking. A short-sighted or short-term view of things, if you will. A good example would be all of the politically-motivated "chicken little" cries we've been hearing in the past 40 years. We like to think of ourselves (and the laws and rules we make) as making things better but much of the motivation is for the short-term and for self-gratification that they would end up being detrimental in the end...all because we chose not learn the lessons and perspectives of history.

So your point about values (and symbologies) changing is apt but one should be wary to think that somehow we have improved upon them.

Bucc, I think that you and JW are making an excellent point about looking at history in context. My point here is that contemporary views of the flag (or anything else) should be treated the same way: There is a context to questions like "why does the flag inspire fear, hatred, and anger in many black americans", "why do many white southerners feel so strongly about the flag as representative of their heritage". These answers to these questions seem simple, but people on opposite sides of the debate don't want to hear them...

As far as your point about decisions in the name of progress often being short-sided goes: I won't disagree with you, it happens. Again, my point was that looking at these issues in its contemporary context is just as important looking at them from a historical standpoint. The confederate flag issue is a case in point--the flag and it's origins are almost not the point in these debates: what that flag represents to people is what is more important. Anti-flag people are seen as race-sensitive whiners, pro-flag people are seen as racists... the truth is not that cut and dry and you need to understand the motivations of the people on both sides to get at that truth.

[Adamski47]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

This thread is totally gay awesome!

Adamski: Everybody I see driving around with a confederate flag is retarded and poor.
JIMGA: The flag ROOLZ, the south roolz, everybody where you come from is retarded. Also, you are poor. Especially when compared to me.

Apparently it's lost on both of you that you've just had a very heated agreement, since anybody that Adamski sees driving around with a confederate flag is likely in the same half of the country, and therefore a poor retard by both parties standards. Let's all come together with love and respect, and realize that even if we may have differing reasons, we all agree that anybody driving around Chicago with a confederate flag on their car is a poverty stricken, developmentally disabled douchebag.

Exactly! I'm surprised it took this long for someone to ask about this!

I agree about trying not to judge a book by it's cover, but in this instance (at least for me) it's hard for me not to. Sorry, just being honest. So dirtass.

[rkmsuf]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

[HomerJSimpson]

They're just some good ol' boys.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Bucc, I think that you and JW are making an excellent point about looking at history in context. My point here is that contemporary views of the flag (or anything else) should be treated the same way: There is a context to questions like "why does the flag inspire fear, hatred, and anger in many black americans", "why do many white southerners feel so strongly about the flag as representative of their heritage". These answers to these questions seem simple, but people on opposite sides of the debate don't want to hear them...

As far as your point about decisions in the name of progress often being short-sided goes: I won't disagree with you, it happens. Again, my point was that looking at these issues in its contemporary context is just as important looking at them from a historical standpoint. The confederate flag issue is a case in point--the flag and it's origins are almost not the point in these debates: what that flag represents to people is what is more important. Anti-flag people are seen as race-sensitive whiners, pro-flag people are seen as racists... the truth is not that cut and dry and you need to understand the motivations of the people on both sides to get at that truth.

I also agree that certain decisions in the name of progress can often be short-sited. History is chalk full of examples. But I can't see any reasonable person thinking freeing slaves in the U.S. as being an example of such an instance.

I agree that we can't always look back at that past and project our moral norms and values on what was going on. It's possible that 150 years in the future people could look on our societ today and say "Wow. They worked at offices in little cubicles for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week? That's horrible! The savages!" Or something like that. But there are certain basic values that I feel completely comfortable saying "We got it right. What they did in the past, regardless of their understanding or context, was wrong." Whatever understandings they based those values on were misguided and undeniably false. Slavery is certainly one of those. The right for women to vote/own land, etc. is another.

Today's values are based on a number of different things, chief among them a better scientific understanding of the world and people that flat out refute condoning slavery or denying women rights. Certain cultures today still have slavery and still deny women rights, but I think all reasonable and intelligent people believe those practices are wrong.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally Posted by Adamski47

When I see a confederate flag sticker on a car/truck I do not think "the south" or "racism" all I think of EVERYTIME is how the symbol to me is synonymous with "uneducated." Plain and simple.

You are a #### fool if you think that piece of #### flag stands for anything. Get a job and move out of your mom's basement please.

####ing pathetic.

Edit: Bleeped out my (equally ignorant but necessary) swear words.

Are people who fly the confederate flag worse than thieves?

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=24214

[Telle]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

How have "we" (we being Americans?) traded one form of slavery for another? Do you really think there is any correlation between how pre-Civil War slaves (no right to vote, no right to own property, no right to families, etc., etc.) and how "we" as Americans live now?

The conditions for some migrant farm workers are equivolant to slavery. The September 2003 National Geographic had a big article on modern day slavery, including slavery existing within the United States.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Bucc, I think that you and JW are making an excellent point about looking at history in context. My point here is that contemporary views of the flag (or anything else) should be treated the same way: There is a context to questions like "why does the flag inspire fear, hatred, and anger in many black americans", "why do many white southerners feel so strongly about the flag as representative of their heritage". These answers to these questions seem simple, but people on opposite sides of the debate don't want to hear them...

As far as your point about decisions in the name of progress often being short-sided goes: I won't disagree with you, it happens. Again, my point was that looking at these issues in its contemporary context is just as important looking at them from a historical standpoint. The confederate flag issue is a case in point--the flag and it's origins are almost not the point in these debates: what that flag represents to people is what is more important. Anti-flag people are seen as race-sensitive whiners, pro-flag people are seen as racists... the truth is not that cut and dry and you need to understand the motivations of the people on both sides to get at that truth.

good points.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Telle

The conditions for some migrant farm workers are equivolant to slavery. The September 2003 National Geographic had a big article on modern day slavery, including slavery existing within the United States.

I think I read that article. It was great (as most National Geographic artciles are) and quite sad.

[Marmel]

How can you not love two guys arguing income on a text sim message board in a thread about the confederate flag? And then you have Jon saying, "I didn't start it, he did!" This thread is about as pathetic as the confederate flag.

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

The main thing that I'd like to broach here is that all of us that support what the flag means to us (meaning JoninMiddleGA and some others) are not a bunch of knuckledragging, jean short wearing, Red Man chewing necks. I just refuse to not honor my ancestors because they supposedly were treasonous as some here have said. Blood is thicker than water. I wish I lived in a world that people were taken at face value, instead of stereotypes that try to impose their will upon me and make me ashamed of things that I'm clearly not of.

Someone asked me a few threads back if I flew the flag. I don't, but I'd like to if the "world" were different. If I flew the flag, I'd be stereotyped as a racist dirtbag, even though nothing could be further from the truth.

[Huckleberry]

If you were truly proud of them, you could accept the fact that they committed treason and then go about debating whether or not it was right and just for them to do so.