Confederate Battle Flag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stars and bars= liberty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stars and bars= liberty

I believe this is also an expression of free speech. Wish it came in wet wipes too.

Best use yet.

[Anonymous]

I took a rebel stand.

[Anonymous]

One could sit there and insist the Nazi flag is just a blankie for your stuffed bunny but that would never change history or take away the horror of the Holocaust. It only paints you as ignorant of what thge symbol means. Similarly one could sit there and insist the Confederate flag is about sweet tea, pecan pie and Daisy Duke but that won't change history or take away the horror of what happened with slavery and the senseless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the name of keeping the institution of slavery. It only paints you as ignorant of what the symbol means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is bubba at the diner? He doesn't seem very sophisticated unlike the fine northern families who plied the slave trade.

90% of the US slave trade was operated out of Georgia and the Carolinas. Slave importation was abolished in 1808. Slavery was abolished in most of the northern states by 1820. It was the Southerners who kept on enslaving generation after generation of home grown slaves after importation was abolished.

Abolishing slavery in the northern states wasn't much of an issue as they were not dependent on slaves for their industries etc. while the agricultural crops of tobacco & cotton required lots of hands. But the north continued to profit from slavery financially after 1820 up to the Civil War. They were not averse to trading various financial instruments that directly related to slave labor. Nor were they averse to products that were directly related to slavery.

And before anyone raises the northern states based on their anti slavery lets remember that the barons of the day, and others, exploited workers with low wages, company towns, child labor. Many died due to the deplorable conditions they worked in and their freedoms so limited they were virtual slaves. That continued, and grew, throughout the 19th century.

That's a deflection. The North wasn't forcing the South to continue to practice slavery. The North found other ways to conduct their business and in fact it was the Northern states that continued to lead the charge in working toward equity and better conditions for workers - the North was far ahead of the South in terms of improving conditions where it came to sharecroppers and indentured servants.

You're either uninformed or in denial. No deflection, just a realistic representation of the facts. Much has been written that while the South had chattel slaves (replaced by sharecroppers and very low wage farm workers) the North had wage slaves. Many of them immigrants who had little choice. Changes in working conditions, hours and wages didn't begin until the late 19th century didn't become more common place until well into the 20th. What it boils down to is that while there are some differences the fact is that as a part of the times, sweatshops, 12 & 14 hour days 6 and sometimes 7 days a week, company towns, deplorable factory and mine conditions...all often at very low wages....they were a fact and yes it happened in the North. If they did in fact have it so good in the northern states why were they so driven to head out west and face such uncertainty and possible death? One of the reasons slavery didn't move west is it was largely settled by those from the northern states.

Now...as to firms in the North that benefited from slavery. Among them, Lehman Brothers, Aetna, New York Life and banks that made loans with slaves as collateral. Some offered slave insurance reimbursing slave owners for their deaths. Others loaned money for expansion of cotton plantations. The old axiom that cotton is king related to the money it generated as it drove industry. Ever heard of the sweatshops in New York's garment district?

This isn't to absolve slave owners, the abhorrent trade in human flesh and indifference to their well being is not to be excused even in consideration of another time and place. But this whole the South was hell and the North progressive/heaven is nonsense. There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above.

I have bolded your false dichotomy. No one said that the antebellum North was progressive/heaven.

But the South was really, really bad to black people.

The fact that you ignored facts given to you and singled out that one part...nothing left to say to a closed mind.

It was your central argument. The previous paragraphs were just your attempt to support it. You blew it at the conclusion.

This was the conclusion..."There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above." And is supported by the facts that you are ignoring as if I am attempting to balance one with the other while what I am doing is shining a light on all of it.

So nobody is completely innocent, so everyone is the same. Give it a break. If you are whipping, raping, and enslaving humans, you are qualitatively and quantitatively more evil than someone who offered a property insurance policy to a plantation owner.

Never said everyone is the same but apparently the facts don't sit well with others. Yet you expect all those southerners to eat their past since some of them were vile human beings (btw, in 1860, only 25% of households owned slaves) and doling out degree of their offenses and doing so as if all slave owners were equal. While holding no one, who were also vile human beings, in the north accountable.

There were some really decent Germans fighting in WWII. And not every German soldier was fighting for world domination or to rid the world of Jews. There were many, many Germans who were fighting--even in the SS--who were fighting for the honor of their homeland, and to keep their families safe. Meanwhile, America of the 1940s was anything but a bastion of Jewish rights. In fact, there were Americans who would challenge some of the German high command with their anti-semitism.

Therefore, obviously, we should fly a swastika in front of the SC State House. After all, you don't know what's in the heart of every swastika waving American.

Nonsense.

And by that, of course, you mean "absolutely on point"?

There are some decent folks fighting for ISIS, you know. Just trying to protect their families. Let's honor their heritage.

You have shown you want to create your own truncated, and/or myopic, view of history so changing what I said to mean absolutely on point doesn't surprise me but it also doesn't make it real.

[Anonymous]

When peace activist Joan Baez sang The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, was that about white supremacy?

Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnS9M03F-fA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is bubba at the diner? He doesn't seem very sophisticated unlike the fine northern families who plied the slave trade.

90% of the US slave trade was operated out of Georgia and the Carolinas. Slave importation was abolished in 1808. Slavery was abolished in most of the northern states by 1820. It was the Southerners who kept on enslaving generation after generation of home grown slaves after importation was abolished.

Abolishing slavery in the northern states wasn't much of an issue as they were not dependent on slaves for their industries etc. while the agricultural crops of tobacco & cotton required lots of hands. But the north continued to profit from slavery financially after 1820 up to the Civil War. They were not averse to trading various financial instruments that directly related to slave labor. Nor were they averse to products that were directly related to slavery.

And before anyone raises the northern states based on their anti slavery lets remember that the barons of the day, and others, exploited workers with low wages, company towns, child labor. Many died due to the deplorable conditions they worked in and their freedoms so limited they were virtual slaves. That continued, and grew, throughout the 19th century.

That's a deflection. The North wasn't forcing the South to continue to practice slavery. The North found other ways to conduct their business and in fact it was the Northern states that continued to lead the charge in working toward equity and better conditions for workers - the North was far ahead of the South in terms of improving conditions where it came to sharecroppers and indentured servants.

You're either uninformed or in denial. No deflection, just a realistic representation of the facts. Much has been written that while the South had chattel slaves (replaced by sharecroppers and very low wage farm workers) the North had wage slaves. Many of them immigrants who had little choice. Changes in working conditions, hours and wages didn't begin until the late 19th century didn't become more common place until well into the 20th. What it boils down to is that while there are some differences the fact is that as a part of the times, sweatshops, 12 & 14 hour days 6 and sometimes 7 days a week, company towns, deplorable factory and mine conditions...all often at very low wages....they were a fact and yes it happened in the North. If they did in fact have it so good in the northern states why were they so driven to head out west and face such uncertainty and possible death? One of the reasons slavery didn't move west is it was largely settled by those from the northern states.

Now...as to firms in the North that benefited from slavery. Among them, Lehman Brothers, Aetna, New York Life and banks that made loans with slaves as collateral. Some offered slave insurance reimbursing slave owners for their deaths. Others loaned money for expansion of cotton plantations. The old axiom that cotton is king related to the money it generated as it drove industry. Ever heard of the sweatshops in New York's garment district?

This isn't to absolve slave owners, the abhorrent trade in human flesh and indifference to their well being is not to be excused even in consideration of another time and place. But this whole the South was hell and the North progressive/heaven is nonsense. There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above.

I have bolded your false dichotomy. No one said that the antebellum North was progressive/heaven.

But the South was really, really bad to black people.

The fact that you ignored facts given to you and singled out that one part...nothing left to say to a closed mind.

It was your central argument. The previous paragraphs were just your attempt to support it. You blew it at the conclusion.

This was the conclusion..."There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above." And is supported by the facts that you are ignoring as if I am attempting to balance one with the other while what I am doing is shining a light on all of it.

So nobody is completely innocent, so everyone is the same. Give it a break. If you are whipping, raping, and enslaving humans, you are qualitatively and quantitatively more evil than someone who offered a property insurance policy to a plantation owner.

Never said everyone is the same but apparently the facts don't sit well with others. Yet you expect all those southerners to eat their past since some of them were vile human beings (btw, in 1860, only 25% of households owned slaves) and doling out degree of their offenses and doing so as if all slave owners were equal. While holding no one, who were also vile human beings, in the north accountable.

There were some really decent Germans fighting in WWII. And not every German soldier was fighting for world domination or to rid the world of Jews. There were many, many Germans who were fighting--even in the SS--who were fighting for the honor of their homeland, and to keep their families safe. Meanwhile, America of the 1940s was anything but a bastion of Jewish rights. In fact, there were Americans who would challenge some of the German high command with their anti-semitism.

Therefore, obviously, we should fly a swastika in front of the SC State House. After all, you don't know what's in the heart of every swastika waving American.

Nonsense.

And by that, of course, you mean "absolutely on point"?

There are some decent folks fighting for ISIS, you know. Just trying to protect their families. Let's honor their heritage.

You have shown you want to create your own truncated, and/or myopic, view of history so changing what I said to mean absolutely on point doesn't surprise me but it also doesn't make it real.

Khmer Rouge, Stalin-era Soviets, Nazi Germany, ISIS. We should celebrate them all; there were good folks as well as bad, and no one's perfect!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
When peace activist Joan Baez sang The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, was that about white supremacy?

Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnS9M03F-fA

"Woe is me, we started a war but got our asses kicked."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
When peace activist Joan Baez sang The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, was that about white supremacy?

Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnS9M03F-fA

A. That song was written by The Band, not Joan Baez. Specifically Robbie Robertson, a northerner. Levon Helm, the only southerner in The Band, refused to sing it from 1971 on, because he found it patronizing to southerners.

B. The song does not discuss the reasons for war. It is about the pain that the war caused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When peace activist Joan Baez sang The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, was that about white supremacy?

Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnS9M03F-fA

A. That song was written by The Band, not Joan Baez. Specifically Robbie Robertson, a northerner. Levon Helm, the only southerner in The Band, refused to sing it from 1971 on, because he found it patronizing to southerners.

B. The song does not discuss the reasons for war. It is about the pain that the war caused.

Look you patronizing fool of course she didn't write the song..... The point is she can sing a song about the war without being in favor of slavery...... If she can sing that song thusly, is it so crazy to think a southern can fly the stars and bars without advocating slavery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When peace activist Joan Baez sang The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, was that about white supremacy?

Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnS9M03F-fA

A. That song was written by The Band, not Joan Baez. Specifically Robbie Robertson, a northerner. Levon Helm, the only southerner in The Band, refused to sing it from 1971 on, because he found it patronizing to southerners.

B. The song does not discuss the reasons for war. It is about the pain that the war caused.

Look you patronizing fool of course she didn't write the song..... The point is she can sing a song about the war without being in favor of slavery...... If she can sing that song thusly, is it so crazy to think a southern can fly the stars and bars without advocating slavery?

I can sing a song about Jesse James, but it doesn't mean I support killers. But if I fly the flag of the confederacy, it is a statement of support. That's what flags are for. tp sjpw where your loyalty lies.

You are free to fly it for whatever reasons you choose. Others may get it, or misinterpret it. But the government of a state, which represents all people, should not be flying it.

[Anonymous]

So songs can have different meanings for the person singing but flags have a fixed meaning and you know what that meaning is for everyone. Makes a lot of sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So songs can have different meanings for the person singing but flags have a fixed meaning and you know what that meaning is for everyone. Makes a lot of sense

np

Touché!

[Anonymous]

Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor and head of the Department of History at West Point, shoots down all the theories that the Civil War wasn't about slavery here:

http://youtu.be/tqfLr2XtXf0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So songs can have different meanings for the person singing but flags have a fixed meaning and you know what that meaning is for everyone. Makes a lot of sense

Good point. I'm going to go buy a swastika flag tomorrow to support my German heritage. And how dare you tell me what it's supposed to mean!