Offended By Confederate Flag

[Sammie13]

on purpose[/I]. The same, I strongly suspect, was true of 9/11.

I don't for a second believe either of those statements.

 

[Kulindahr]

We are all Americans, we all know the horrible things that happened in the past. Embrace it, Honor it and Remember it. Time to realize that there are bigger problems in the world that a silly flag.

I think the bigger picture is that we need to stop separating ourselves in these group (italians, irish, black, mexican, etc.) and realize that we are all AMERICANS. This is our country, we are all different and unique, but the same. We need to respect each other for who we are and understand that this country is free. The people you are so mad at for hanging a flag out their window can do what they want, whether their underlying intention is good or bad, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, just the same as you can hang a gay pride flag off your porch and celebrate your own uniqueness. Maybe your way of life will offend them the same way your assumption of them and their flag is offending you.

Everyone on this thread and everyone in this country just needs to chill.being so political correct and crap bothers the hell out of me.Lets worry about this terrible oil crisis, getting a decent president in that white house, solving poverty, our climate crisis and working on bringing a bit of peace throughout the world. those are my priorities, not flags.

Let's invoke the Golden Rule: what we'd like to see all those other Americans out there do when they see our 'Gay Pride' flag is raise us a toast and give us a cheer -- so when we see people flying their Confederate battle flag, raise them a toast and give them a cheer, for being themselves, for exercising their rights, for living in freedom and not in sniveling bowing and scraping to whomever they might possibly be offending.

 

[Kulindahr]

BTW, Cher, I've never met a redneck who would be the least interested in having a slave. They don't even care f blacks live down the road! They just don't want to have to go to the same clubs, bars, or whatever -- as free men, they want to be allowed to do what blacks and women and other minorities do: have their own organizations and not have to "welcome" others under threat of force.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't for a second believe either of those statements.

Dude, it is thoroughly documented that FDR had in hand all the information about the coming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and not only made no effort to avert it, but didn't permit the commanders there to be warned.
And there're enough odd circumstances about 9/11 that it isn't at all unreasonable to conclude that Bush knew it was coming, and deliberately let it happen, for the same reason FDR let Peral Harbor happen: to give a cause for war, since emotional reactions are far more potent in gaining support than reasoned arguments.

 

[Sammie13]

Dude, it is thoroughly documented that FDR had in hand all the information about the coming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and not only made no effort to avert it, but didn't permit the commanders there to be warned.
And there're enough odd circumstances about 9/11 that it isn't at all unreasonable to conclude that Bush knew it was coming, and deliberately let it happen, for the same reason FDR let Peral Harbor happen: to give a cause for war, since emotional reactions are far more potent in gaining support than reasoned arguments.

There is little documentation of either event being anticipated....only the usual bored conspiracy-mongers.

In regards to Pearl Harbor, yes FDR wanted the Japanese to fire the first shot, but he also did not want or need alot of collateral damage. Most Americans were already mentally prepared for war. He didn't need massive destrution of PH to go forward...when all it would take is a torpedo or two to escalate our presence into the war. The reigning assumption of the military advisors was that Japan would attack from the South. The Phillipines were certain to be the target. If FDR had known beforehand, again to mobilize Americans all he needed was one boat/plane sunk/shot down, and voila, the US was in the war. With prior knowledge, he would have repositioned the fleet and dispersed airplanes to ensure minimal damage. FDR, in no way, would have needlessly jeopardized 3500 lives and the naval fleet which he was so fond, without lifting a finger to protect them.

Because there was a full realization that something was about to break loose from the Japanese when Cordell Hull's last ditch negotiations were falling flat, conspiracists today like to assume there is evidence that FDR knew about PH, but there is nothing concrete to point to his knowledge and there was little motivation for him to allow that kind of destruction. I want disagree that he was prodding and manipulating situations to provoke the Japanese. He likely did need some form of aggression from them to seal the PR deal with Americans to move into the war. But, I don't think he knew the time and place.

And 9/11, lots of little things that don't add up to a whole lot to me.

 

[Za-Ja-BoManner]

FDR and the US military expected an attack, but not at Pearl Harbor. They assumed it would come at one of the US possessions in Asia such as the Philippines.

FDR wasn't keen on war with Japan in any case, he wanted to get the US into the European Theatre. There was, in fact, some concern that with Japan attacking the US, we would have little excuse to invade Europe as a response, fortunately Hitler declared war on us and made it all nice and simple.

 

[radical matt]

I feel that many are racist that are replying on this forum. I care what people think because if we don't educate eachother then racism WILL LIVE ON! That's my goal, to help contribute my part to the world by helping end discrimination. It DOES have to do with me even if im white.. because i have many black friends who i treat as brothers and sisters and who have done countless things for me.. and if you hurt or offend them.. you do it to ME too! If a black friend of mine sees that confederate flag and feels hurt... I won't stand for that. Rednecks need to move on and accept they aren't getting their slaves back! If anything public schools need to teach more in the south the seriousness of how blacks were treated and see WHY people are offended. Instead of saying well it doesn't harm us.. it does mentally and you need to stop and think WHY do they care and WHY do they feel that way.

Uhm...I'm confused. Racism will only live on as long as people think in terms of color, as you do. "im white", "many black friends", "a black friend of mine", "Rednecks need to move on"...it seems that race is a big deal to you. It seems that Rednecks are sub-human in your eyes.

...people once used to feel that certain folk were sub-human, incapable of looking after themselves, incapable of showing intellect:

Sir,—I have received the favor of your letter of August 17th, and with it the volume you were so kind to send me on the "Literature of Negroes." Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunity for the development of their genius were not favorable and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making toward their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men, which cannot fail to have effect in hastening the day of their relief; and to be assured of the sentiments of high and just esteem and consideration which I tender to yourself with all sincerity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Jefferson_and_slavery

Spoken by that champion of freedom himself; Thomas Jefferson.



You're a racist...you're a racist towards Rednecks.

Now, you'll say that isn't racist at all, and for that I have to beg your pardon.

You're discriminatory. You view one set of people through a different lens than another. You are not a person of equal opportunity, but rather a person who condemns others who are different than himself; the very definition of intolerance, which is a much greater crime and leads to far greater evils than even slavery ever could.



I gave you a "brief" history of the Civil War and what the Confederate flag stands for. Did you read it? If you did, you're doing a good job of totally ignoring it. You show an ignorance of what the Civil War was fought over and yet profess that YOU are the one to teach other people about ignorance. You discriminate freely against others yet YOU believe that you and/or people you know are being discriminated against, and that those who do it are wrong to do so.


All I can say is that I pity you. And since you're so strongly resisting being educated such that you no longer be ignorant, I guess I'll have to leave it at that since you don't care to listen to any opinion that differs from your own - refusing both a peaceful coexistence AND even the less troublesome live and let live view of life. I'm truly sorry for that, but so be it. I hope someday you'll get to see more of this world and realize that not everyone is so full of hate as you seem to think they are (or perhaps are yourself...)


But I'll give you this little piece of wisdom:

Racism will only endure so long as one human being sees another as the color of his skin. As long as you have "my black friends", racism will endure. Only when you have "my friends" will racism be able to be put to rest. It's the same way with the Obama election; that people speak of his race indicates racism hasn't been put to rest. Only when people see him as a man of character who has won an election will racism be dead. Funny, isn't it? The only way to end racism is to not notice race...yet so many people seem to believe that only by minorities achieving things will racism end. Am I being so over simplistic to see that that very thing; praising a black man for doing what no other black man has done before; is itself racism given voice?

Only when people no longer notice the differences between each other's skin color will racism be dead. And sadly, people like you are part of the problem, not the solution...

 

[Jaime]

You're a racist...you're a racist towards Rednecks.

Now, you'll say that isn't racist at all, and for that I have to beg your pardon.

You're discriminatory. You view one set of people through a different lens than another. You are not a person of equal opportunity, but rather a person who condemns others who are different than himself; the very definition of intolerance, which is a much greater crime and leads to far greater evils than even slavery ever could.

yeah, racism isn't quite the right word, because his anti-south bigotry extends to non-white southerners as well. (me, for instance.)

but he's too small-minded to realize that he's guilty of the same intolerance that he loves to rant about. he's too busy patting himself on the back because he has black friends, which i, as a southerner, surely don't.

 

[radical matt]

Right Kul, sorry. But you get what I mean, right? States' rights as a concept is one to prevent an absolute power federal government from becoming a tyrannical power over the people. It's the concept that the people of each state should have the right to decide what they feel is right/just/moral/law themselves. E.g. Texas shouldn't decide what Californians find offensive/acceptable, nor vice versa. It is still the idea of majority rule, but on a state by state basis, not a one-size-fits-all of the federal level of governing.

It reminds me of this idea of effective currency union size that I learned in Economics, though I don't remember the name of the person that proposed it. The idea is that if a currency union grows too large, or, more specifically, into areas that have vastly different production capacity (e.g. European Union nations and Turkey, a nation that wants to become part of the EU), then you may have some problems.

As it is, the US and, say, Saudi Arabia use different currencies. If the price of oil goes up, SA makes money, but the exchange rate is allowed to fluctuate to eventually bring equilibrium. Likewise if the price for the service industry goes up (something the US does "export"), then the exchange rate may adjust in time for that as well. However, if they both use the same currency you have problems.

An example might be the US and EU. If the value of the US $ drops, than people in Europe may come to the US to purchase goods and services at a reduced price to them (exchange rate), but doing so increases the demand for US goods, so the US $ will then become stronger. However, if they used the same currency, than while the US would fall into hyper-inflation, the EU might fall into a depression.

Mainly it's based on how freely labor (workers) are allowed to flow to the area where jobs are (away from where there are no jobs). But if there are two different currencies, then that means that the exchange rate can fluctuate.


...in a roundabout way, it's the same with morays, ethics, and laws. If the united body of people grows too large, then you start having majority rule and minority oppression to that majority rule. But with states' rights, it cuts that majority into smaller chunks. That is, Texans can choose what's right for Texans, Californians can choose what's right for Californians, and so on. Whereas if one state or a small body of states was allowed to set the laws for all of the others, than why even have states to begin with? And further, that's only oppressing ALL numerical minorities at once. If you cut it up into states, there's still majority rule, but only to the boundaries of that state, meaning if you don't like it, you have other options.

I don't like California's gun control laws? Find, I can move to Texas. I don't like New York's personal income tax? Again, I can move to Texas (which has no state income tax.) It allows smaller groups of people, communities, to decide what is right for them instead of having what is "right" being forced on them. California may like regulation of power now...but Texans don't like roving blackouts. To each his own.

Without the concept of states' rights, we'd be having all our laws determined by people off in other states who have their own, not our own, best interests in mind, as well as having different ideas on what is right and wrong.



I dunno, maybe to some people, that's a good thing; numerical majority imposing their will on the numerical minority. But that's not what the Constitutional Republic of the United States with its representative democracy was founded for.

 

[radical matt]

YES, you are.

It is naive to think there will ever be a day that we will not see skin color. A colorblind society is NOT the goal.
Human beings will always see differences in skin color, just as we see differences in eye color, height, hair color and texture, facial bone structure, tooth size/shape/color, fingernail length, and all the rest. No doubt we are hardwired to notice these things, consciously or unconsciously.

Racism will be dead when we evolve to a point that we cease making assumptions about one another's abilities on the basis of skin color and ancestry, and when we cease rendering judgments about one another's worth on the basis of skin color and ancestry. In other words, when we treat skin color the way we treat handedness. We still notice whether someone is right- or lefthanded, but we don't assume that being one or the other has any bearing on one's intelligence, compassion, creativity, leadership potential, or moral fortitude.

Hm...so I'm evolved then? To be, color of skin is like color of hair. On some people it looks nice maybe, but it doesn't really matter much.

A (mentally) colorblind society is the goal. A society that takes no notice of a person's skin color. A society that, if it sees another person, considers them "...not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character."

...unless we've decided that MLK Jr. was wrong, that is. I happen to believe that he was right, and my own views I try to align with that ideal; that I should treat people based on their character, who they CHOOSE to be, not what they were born as. I want to make no note of a person's skin, only who that person is, who they choose to be, what they choose to make of themselves. And to consider and treat them only; only judging when it seems necessary, which ideally would be not at all.



And for the record, I don't usually notice when people are right or left handed. Usually I'm busy having lively debates and discussing the meaning of life with them.


Maybe I am naive. But in my naiveté, I will reach that ideal. I will evolve.

If you want to be left in my dust, saying it's simply not possible, than that is your CHOICE, to make. Hopefully my "evolved" self won't look upon you too overly unkind for that "unevolved" choice.


A sentence to the wise: Maybe life would be a little more fair if less people said "life isn't fair" and set about to make it fair.

Nothing is impossible, only what you decide is impossible for you. You have no boundaries except those which you impose on yourself. I prefer to let my boundaries reach the heavens and the infinite expanse. But if you want to limit yourself by the four walls surrounding you, that's your choice to make too.

 

[opinterph]

It’s all well and good to try and sort through this somewhat complex and controversial issue; however, suggesting that certain negative labels may be applicable to fellow posters violates the spirit of this forum.

Please keep your comments directed to the topic – not each other.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

I don't understand the "outrage" over the flag..

For many,right or wrong, it is the symbol of a cause in which many many thousands gave their lives to support..

Personally,I feel the Civil War should never have been fought..

If the South,or ANY other state wishes to seceed from the Union, they should not be forced at gunpoint to remain in it..

Just today,while driving through Virginia,I saw this memorial to fallen Confederate Soldiers..

I thought it was kinda cool..

Unlike today's modern republican, these men actually had the balls to fight to fight and die for a cause they belived in..

They weren't republicans... back then the southern racist white religious snobs were actually all the democrats.. the liberal average working man party was the Republicans! But now its switched places. How odd is that?

 

[greydog]

Please provide link that he intentionally bombed civilians.

Jeesh! get a life........he didn't say it was intentional!

 

[kallipolis]

I would add for historical clarity that the United States flag flew over slaves, far longer than the Confederate battle ensign!

 

[Sammie13]

Radical Matt, you've done an outstanding job articulating the civil war message of the South....I'm not sure you're getting anywhere with the OP, though. When it comes to that flag, both sides really do dig their heels in deep. Good job, nevertheless.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

I would add for historical clarity that the United States flag flew over slaves, far longer than the Confederate battle ensign!

Yes you're correct, and far before the civil war began, slavery was banned but the south didn't listen. So they didn't WANT to be part of the USA. The USA that flew that flag is what did NOT want slavery apart of the nation and saw it as inhumane! So the southerners didn't want the US flag anymore but a new CONFEDERATE FLAG which was a slap in the face to the north.. inconsiderate bastards.

The US flag flew longer... but that nation flying that US flag wanted slavery to be STOPPED and tried hard to end it without violence. The south that held the slavery DID NOT WANT THE US FLAG. We as a US nation did not want slavery.. just the redneck confederates

 

[Jaime]

cher, where the fuck did you learn american history? slavery was not banned before the 13th amendment.

 

[radical matt]

It’s all well and good to try and sort through this somewhat complex and controversial issue; however, suggesting that certain negative labels may be applicable to fellow posters violates the spirit of this forum.

Please keep your comments directed to the topic – not each other.

Understood, sir. I don't feel right apologizing for having said it, though, since I constantly tell people they should never be ashamed of speaking the truth. I'll try not to be so negative towards him anymore, but...well, I'll be nice. ^_^

EDIT: But him saying Redneck Confederates? Further, if Redneck is used for anyone in the South, then I find that a bit insulting as well. My neck is entirely too white.

 

[radical matt]

Yes you're correct, and far before the civil war began, slavery was banned but the south didn't listen. So they didn't WANT to be part of the USA. The USA that flew that flag is what did NOT want slavery apart of the nation and saw it as inhumane! So the southerners didn't want the US flag anymore but a new CONFEDERATE FLAG which was a slap in the face to the north.. inconsiderate bastards.

The US flag flew longer... but that nation flying that US flag wanted slavery to be STOPPED and tried hard to end it without violence. The south that held the slavery DID NOT WANT THE US FLAG. We as a US nation did not want slavery.. just the redneck confederates

The North had mostly ended slavery on a state by state basis (States' rights) while they South had not, nor had the middle line states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and the state of Virginia (West Virginia formed during the war as the northwest part of that state didn't want to join the Confederacy.)

While the balance of power between the North and the South was set upon the edge of the proverbial sword of war, the North didn't do anything to prevent slavery nor to outlaw it.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was made during the war, after secession had already occurred, and only "freed" slaves that were in the Southern states. That is, states that were not currently under his jurisdiction he outlawed slavery in. First this was an illegal action (Presidents cannot make law, that is for Congress to do), second he didn't have authority over the South states at the time, and third it seemed that if they were willing to rejoin the Union, the proclamation would not have applied to them (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, as still part of the Union, were exempt and could keep their slaves.)

Finally, AFTER the war ended (and the Southern Senators and Congressman didn't have any say in Congress due to not having seats), the Congress pushed through the 13th Amendment. However, at this point, it only affected a few states (the border states) as most had already abandoned slavery on their own and slavery in the South was already made illegal by Lincoln.


The North didn't really want to get rid of slavery in the South, it made cotton more affordable to them. They only did it once the war was over, partially as a retribution against the South for the war in the first place.



I'm not sure where you're getting your history or your views, dude, but...your history is in error.

 

[Sammie13]

QFT. lol, Illinois needs to better fund its educational system.

Indeed, ICO7, I noted in his last south-bashing thread that clearly Dixie has moved ahead of the North (at least, Illinois) where education is concerned. Perhaps, the OP needs to take another trip to Arkansas and enroll in a history class.