Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Banning flag burning won't make people more patriotic, though.
It won't really serve much purpose if it is passed - though they probably will give away free beer at the local bar if it passes.

...so where's this massive irony?

I don't see anyone advocating that the government should prohibit a citizen from displaying the confederate flag, for whatever reason they do it.

And yes...it sometimes is used to express hate.  One of those goofy groups came to my school a few months ago, screaming about abortion, homosexuals ("fags," as they put it), fire, brimstone, etc.  Several of them made racist comments to passing students.

They all wore hats with confederate flags on them.  They're a church from Indiana.

Last edited by bratboy (2005-07-08 6:49 pm)

Podesta wrote:

You are entitled to your opinions, Resedit.  Unfortunately, they tend not to be based in fact.   Even after being given primary historical documents to refute neo-Confederate propaganda, you are still claiming slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War, and, the Confederate flag is merely a symbol of  'pride.'   Nuff said.

Seriously, you are wrong. I am not saying slavery was not involved or that the civil war was not ultimately about that, but the point of view you seem to be advocating developed much later.

See, you must understand, that it was a white world both in the north and the south. It is extremely revisionist to imagine that the north was full of people who were anti-slavery and loved black people. The civil war was ultimately about economics: the south had practically no labor expenses and the economy would be shattered by a ban on slavery. Abolition would free slave and at the same moment turn every southerner into poverty. In order to help northern states, they already started to heavily tax southern goods. Was that because they loved the black man and wanted him free? No. Dont kid yourself; it was because they felt the south had an unfair economic edge because they had slaves. Remembering that the decisions and policies that shaped up before the south succeeded were all made by selfish white men should help keep that whole bit in perspective.

Now, does that mean that today people flying that confederate flag are thinking about the way the south and the north fought over economy? Of course not. I bet every KKK member has at least one somewhere because it represents the good ol' days when blacks were slaves to them. But my point is that white washing history to appear as though the war was about some moral good and evil is a pile of horse crap. It was about slavery, but not at all about human rights! It was not a war because blacks deserved rights, but because the federal govt wanted to control the economy.

Later on, people came in and painted the north as the "moral good," and so sometimes present the war as a battle of morality. That way you can teach that the US was always trying to do what was "right." Playing along is just as bad IMO as pretending that slavery was not involved at all and it was just about states rights.

Last edited by StaticAge (2005-07-08 7:40 pm)

resedit wrote:

The war was economic...

Oh, come on...  We both know the war was fought solely over the issue of race.  Them mud people ain't worth 3/5 of a person! 

Res...  seriously...  It's not worth the effort.  The above sentence is what they think we believe.  Now put on your blackface.  It's time for our negro routine.

EDIT:  I figure I better come back and clarify that my reply is meant in complete and utter sarcasm.  I am all for the self-success (emphasis on self) of every individual, regardless of his race, creed or national origin.

Last edited by VegasACF (2005-07-09 1:55 am)

VegasACF wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

Podesta wrote:

neo-Confederate...

...Seriously, you are wrong...

One need not have read any farther than "neo-Confederate" to know that.  It's become the liberal "in" thing to demonize anything by adding "neo" to it.  When all else fails they add that prefix to a word and it's instantly baaaaaaad.

bullsh!t

Metacell wrote:

I think many people fought the war ultimately for many different reasons.  But most probably because thats what everyone else was doing.

That might be true, but still, think about it: I am not trying to erase the positive examples of people who were without a doubt against slavery because it was morally wrong and were for human rights, I am just saying, if there were truly a lot of abolitionists fighting because slavery was bad, how come it took so long for blacks to obtain civil rights?

StaticAge wrote:

Metacell wrote:

I think many people fought the war ultimately for many different reasons.  But most probably because thats what everyone else was doing.

That might be true, but still, think about it: I am not trying to erase the positive examples of people who were without a doubt against slavery because it was morally wrong and were for human rights, I am just saying, if there were truly a lot of abolitionists fighting because slavery was bad, how come it took so long for blacks to obtain civil rights?

They had these people as SLAVES.  Even freeing them must have seemed like a big step.

Couldn't the black man (technically) vote before women could?

StaticAge wrote:

Oh of course! The United States has always been the pinacle of freedom, I must have forgotten. That must be the reason the north won- because they were for freedom and wholesomeness, and the good always triumphs! What a nice bedtime story version of history.

Yeah...that's exactly what I said.



What is it with people on this smurfing board lately?

But Massachusettes was the first colony to legalize slavery. In 1720 New York City out of a population of 7000 people, 1600 were black, and most of them slaves. Wall Street was the marketplace where owners could hire out slaves, in fact. In the Douglas vs Lincoln election, during public debates both men made speeches expressing white supremacist ideas, even while at the same time advancing extending rights and privileges to the Negro man. The Reconstruction was the integration of confederates back into the union, not the black man into society. In fact, that focus of the federal government in "rebuilding" the south is basically what allowed to segregation to rise without a fight, in fact fueled even by its goals, and easily belies the fact of what the civil war was about by the way violence towards black families and communities escalated and was generally ignored by them.

It's all crazy to me, but what I'm saying is that those steps obviously come extremely SLOWLY when your damn country is founded on it.  Slavery was the ONLY thing free from Constitutional amendment (for a limited amount of time, obviously) when the document was signed!

...the politics, and especially the economics, of slavery.

StaticAge wrote:

Seriously, you are wrong.

No, Static, seriously, I'm right.  I said slavery is the main reason Civil War occurred.  I base that on legitimate historical sources.  The claims neo-Confederates make about slavery not being the main cause of the war are post-Civil War justifications.  One is that the South was fighting to remain agrarian, which is a better way of life.  The most common is that taxes were the main cause of the war.  Some secession documents mention ancillary issues, such as complaints about taxes, in passing.  But, the focus is always on slavery.  (I posted a link to Mississippi's causes for secession document.  Feel free to read it.)   The people who seceded (not their great, great grandsons) were direct about choosing slavery over the Union. 

The neo-Confederate movement began publicizing itself and attracting more adherents about a decade ago.  Most of its 'texts,' which are based on post-Civil War disinformation, and,  recently developed apologia, are only a few years old.   Those 'texts' ignore the very founding documents of the Confederacy because they explicitly state the main reason for the South seceding from the Union -- the maintenance of slavery.   Civil war historians are also dismissed because they refute nonsense, such as the claim that most slaves were in the North, and, that only seven percent of Southerners owned slaves.

People who are attracted to the neo-Confederate movement tend to already have racist sentiments before they become followers.  It mainly acts as a rationalization for their biases.  The League of the South and Conservative Citizens Council have their roots in the White Citizens Councils of the "massive resistance" movement, i.e., the "uptown Klan."  The Sons of Confederate Veterans has been taken over by the LOS' more overt racists.  Their objective is to either resegregate society or become such a problem a part of the country chosen by them would be allowed to secede from the Union.   In their ideal society, only white Christian, heterosexual men would be full citizens.  Despite LOS' leader Michael Hill's nightly prayers, neither is going to happen.  But, the neo-Confederate movement still has a divisive effect on the population.

As Brat noted above, Reconstruction also confirms that race was at the core of the white Southerners' behavior.   People who wanted to end slavery would not have engaged in terrorism against the freedmen, or established segregation.  For the racist, the idea of people being equal is an insult and an incitement.  He needs to believe that a tendency toward sun burn, or round eyes, means he is a superior being.  That is why thousands of poor white men fought for slavery.  Even the ones who never owned a slave had a stake because of their belief in white supremacy.  The same is true of racists today. 

After the Civil War, the South valued 'keeping the n------- in their place' above all else and failed to develop its economy.   That refutes the claim that the South was mainly concerned about its economy.  It is only in recent decades, after the civil rights movement, that the obsession with white supremacy that has held the  South back economically, as well as socially, has begun to change.   If the neo-Confederate movement is able to have the degree of impact it wants, the progress will be lost.

As for the term 'neo-Confederate,' it has become the word contemporary Americans who adhere to an ideology of the antebellum South are known by.  It is quite accurate since the ideas neo-Confederates promote have no place in a modern democracy.

Last edited by Podesta (2005-07-09 3:58 pm)

StaticAge wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Yeah...that's exactly what I said.

It's all crazy to me, but what I'm saying is that those steps obviously come extremely SLOWLY when your damn country is founded on it.  Slavery was the ONLY thing free from Constitutional amendment (for a limited amount of time, obviously) when the document was signed!

Okay, abolition was a huge first step towards human rights, but the cause and motivation for it was still not human rights but politics and economics, and that is my point. It is revisionist to claim otherwise.

politics/revisionist... revisionist/politics...
damn! is there no history we can objectively look at for our decision?!!

I say, if it doesn't fit my view, it must be politically revisionist!
down with revisionism!!!!

Last edited by [MA] Flying_Meat (2005-07-09 10:17 pm)

For the record - I'm glad the North won.
I still see nothing wrong with the pride of the South however.

bedstuy wrote:

John Brown was a terrorist.

Fight the power man