The Confederate Flag Rascist or Not?

[leeannpal]

Not to mention, the poor weren't running the show, the rich were, and they in fact DID own slaves. The poor were irrelevant but did all the fighting. This of course being the standard for every American war to this date, but we'll save that for another thread.

 

Good topic guys, hope we can still keep this civil. ;) I may be offending some, but it's reciprocal and in spite of some of the mud slinging it's an important discussion. Believe it or not, I'm learning about my fellow Americans through this discussion and that's important for all of us, and our children.

 

I just don't happen to like revisionist history. It is so important that we look at historical events through the eyes of people at the time and not through our 21st century eyes.

Edited August 4, 2011 by leeannpal

[thowell]

You just need to move to a new state... :D

 

Kids at my daughter's school wear Jesus t-shirts and no one sends them home.

 

 

:iagree: If it were up to me we would. Even though Florida is considered part of the South it is a different culture which is fine just not as friendly to an ultra conservative Jesus loving family!

[8circles]

*Don't read further if the "n" word bothers you!*

 

To use his exact words, "I don't have a problem with black people. It's niggars I can't stand." He uses the term "niggar" to mean any person that routinely behaves in an idiotic manner, never wants to work but feels they "deserve" handouts, and blames others for their lot in life -- whether they are black, white, brown, or purple. My BIL (my sister's dh), though, is most definitely a racist even though he doesn't own a single piece of confederate memorabilia.

 

My children now understand that their father does and says many things I don't want them repeating or emulating. Their father's flag is folded in the cedar chest and not brought out.

 

To answer the OP, I would let my dc continue with the lessons. I would, however, talk with them about the flag, what it means to some, and how it might make others feel. I would explain why we don't display such things in our house or on our person. They will be confronted by such things as teens & adults and I want to make sure they understand my personal point of view so they can be prepared and not caught by surprise.

 

I know you warned me but I read it anyway. I'm just blown-away that people speak this way & seem to think it's OK. I don't know what else to say...

[mommaduck]

I only got through page 11 of the replies, but I wanted to post this. I was born & raised in a small TX town that was definitely redneck, but you hardly ever saw a confederate battle flag or anything else related to the Civil War. It wasn't brought up in any way. My xdh was born & raised in Mississippi. The confederate battle flag is literally everywhere. He is one of those that believes the war was about states rights and has read extensively about it. He is proud of the flag from a heritage standpoint and had one hanging in his bedroom. From many of the jokes he tells and comments he makes... most people would think he's a racist. However, many of his best friends (he doesn't use that term loosely and has often risked his own life for his friends) are black and/or hispanic. To him, it's the attitude and behaviour of the person that elicits the jokes, comments, etc., NOT the color of their skin.

 

*Don't read further if the "n" word bothers you!*

 

To use his exact words, "I don't have a problem with black people. It's niggars I can't stand." He uses the term "niggar" to mean any person that routinely behaves in an idiotic manner, never wants to work but feels they "deserve" handouts, and blames others for their lot in life -- whether they are black, white, brown, or purple. My BIL (my sister's dh), though, is most definitely a racist even though he doesn't own a single piece of confederate memorabilia.

 

My children now understand that their father does and says many things I don't want them repeating or emulating. Their father's flag is folded in the cedar chest and not brought out.

 

To answer the OP, I would let my dc continue with the lessons. I would, however, talk with them about the flag, what it means to some, and how it might make others feel. I would explain why we don't display such things in our house or on our person. They will be confronted by such things as teens & adults and I want to make sure they understand my personal point of view so they can be prepared and not caught by surprise.

 

I think the *n* word bothers most people...even those that I know have Confederate flags, it bothers.

[MomLovesClassics]

I've not read this thread in its entirety but the flag is part of history, and not about slavery. The Civil War was about so much more than just slavery. When you did really deep you learn more than you knew before.

[Slartibartfast]

Not sure if anyone is going to read this coming this late into the discussion but...

 

I am a non-Southerner (born and raised in Southern California) who has resided in Alabama the past 3 years.

 

Before I moved to Alabama I thought the Confederate flag was racist. Now, I do not - although I don't fully defend it, either.

 

Here's the thing: I think there is plenty of ignorance to go around here. And I don't mean that in an insulting way - I mean ignorant as sincerely unaware.

 

Southerners who are ignorant of how people outside their subculture think of and react to the Confederate flag.

 

And others who react that way to the Confederate flag while remaining ignorant of what meaning it has to those for whom Civil War ancestry and heritage played a huge rule in family culture and ancestral reverence for one of the bloodiest wars in history. Basically by agreeing that the Confederate flag is racist, they are agreeing that their ancestors fought and died for a totally racist agenda.

 

No doubt - the Civil War was about slavery. I'm not one of those people who say it wasn't. But, we have to judge those that fought for the Confederacy within the context of their time. It is not fair to compare the Confederate soldiers to Nazis. Slavery was an institution for which the north at one point would have shared just as much culpability as the south, were it not for regional agriculture that increased dependence upon the institution of slavery. And the Confederacy wasn't trying to commit genocide out of nowhere like the Nazis were, but protect their society and homeland as they knew it and had known it for generations. It's not as if the South rose up out of sudden evil ideology and said "I know! Let's enslave people!" This was build upon a foundation of wrongdoing that had lasted generations and getting out of it was not an obvious course in the mid 19th century for a variety of economic and societal reasons. It was not obvious to the North, either. Let's not fool ourselves and think the North was just an enlightened bunch of stalwart abolitionists.

 

ALL THAT SAID, I think enough time has passed that it is time to put the Confederate flag to rest. No one is honoring any immediate ancestor at this point. However, knowing the history of the flag and what it means to many families, I think it is pretty ignorant to just point at a Confederate flag and scream "Racist".

 

And THAT said, I think it is fair to say when you see a random skinhead punk in Los Angeles with a Confederate flag, he's being a punk racist because he is NOT ignorant about the racist connotations of the flag. He knows ****ED well what it means and he's flying it to express his racism. When it hanging on the porch of some 70-yr-old in rural Alabama whose family has been farming the same land for six generations, while that individual may have residual racism, the flag's presence does not specifically represent racism.

 

There is no difference between the Nazis and the Southern slave owners, the Southern slave owners just did things slower...four centuries and millions of people.

 

No, I am not going to believe it was "less bad" because they counted on slavery for their livelihood. That is the way of the "necessary evil" argument and it's wrong.

 

A lot of people thought it was wrong at the time, but excuses were made. We know now that excusing it perpetuated it. We can't go down that path.

 

Sure, some of my family members owned slaves. Their descendants ended up in the Union Army because they wanted to fight against slavery. When we know better, we do better.

[Alveraz]

There is no difference between the Nazis and the Southern slave owners, the Southern slave owners just did things slower...four centuries and millions of people.

 

No, I am not going to believe it was "less bad" because they counted on slavery for their livelihood. That is the way of the "necessary evil" argument and it's wrong.

 

A lot of people thought it was wrong at the time, but excuses were made. We know now that excusing it perpetuated it. We can't go down that path.

 

Sure, some of my family members owned slaves. Their descendants ended up in the Union Army because they wanted to fight against slavery. When we know better, we do better.

 

:thumbup:

[MSNative]

I've always wondered about people who are so hot for states rights... what would you call it when the state treads on you? Will there be a call for county rights or maybe town rights? I fear my local & state government far more the the federal.

 

 

I'm curious about this. Why would you fear local and state more? You as an individual voter have much more say in those smaller elections. Plus, as you mentioned, if you don't like something, you could move to another state/county/town. When the federal gov't does something poorly, every state, county and town is subject to that bad decision.

[zenjenn]

There is no difference between the Nazis and the Southern slave owners, the Southern slave owners just did things slower...four centuries and millions of people.

 

So, seriously. You think the deliberate and genocidal confinement of people for their systematic and absolute murder is morally EQUIVALENT to slavery?

 

Slavery was absolutely wrong, but there absolutely are things that are worse. At least it WAS possible to be an ethical person in the 1700s and 1800s, given certain circumstances, knowing that a freed slave had minimal opportunity for any kind of positive future, could treat their slaves well and humanely given the context and circumstances of their time. Even if it was rare, there is a context there, where it was like "crap, this is an unethical institution that we've dug ourselves into due to our ground-up society being built upon a wild and lawless frontier, and it's going to take a while to dig ourselves out."

 

There's no humane rationalization that can be dreamed up when it comes to shoving people by the hundreds into gas chambers or throwing piles of emaciated bodies into rotting fetid pits of death - and in an already-established 20th century society at that.

Edited August 4, 2011 by zenjenn

[Alveraz]

So, seriously. You think the deliberate and genocidal confinement of people for their systematic and absolute murder is morally EQUIVALENT to slavery?

 

Slavery was absolutely wrong, but there absolutely are things that are worse. At least it WAS possible to be an ethical person in the 1700s and 1800s, given certain circumstances, knowing that a freed slave had minimal opportunity for any kind of positive future, could treat their slaves well and humanely given the context and circumstances of their time.

 

There's no humane rationalization that can be dreamed up when it comes to shoving people by the hundreds into gas chambers or throwing piles of emaciated bodies into rotting fetid pits of death.

 

Her stance is no more crazy than your rationale to prove which evil is "less wrong".

[Slartibartfast]

So, seriously. You think the deliberate and genocidal confinement of people for their systematic and absolute murder is morally EQUIVALENT to slavery?

 

Slavery was absolutely wrong, but there absolutely are things that are worse. At least it WAS possible to be an ethical person in the 1700s and 1800s, given certain circumstances, knowing that a freed slave had minimal opportunity for any kind of positive future, could treat their slaves well and humanely given the context and circumstances of their time. Even if it was rare, there is a context there, where it was like "crap, this is an unethical institution that we've dug ourselves into due to our ground-up society being built upon a wild and lawless frontier, and it's going to take a while to dig ourselves out."

 

There's no humane rationalization that can be dreamed up when it comes to shoving people by the hundreds into gas chambers or throwing piles of emaciated bodies into rotting fetid pits of death - and in an already-established 20th century society at that.

 

I am not discounting the horrors of the Holocaust, my point is that many downplay the horrors of American Slavery.

 

No one has true numbers of those who were killed or died due to abuse, because no one cared.

 

Some historians put the estimates at one billion people

 

I don't want to do the "worse atrocity" thing because I don't find it appropriate but my point is that many downplay the horrors of African slavery.

 

You said,

 

At least it WAS possible to be an ethical person in the 1700s and 1800s, given certain circumstances, knowing that a freed slave had minimal opportunity for any kind of positive future, could treat their slaves well and humanely given the context and circumstances of their time.

 

No? They ethical people paid wages, sure there were plenty of them but they paid.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Sis

[Rivka]

Just trying to wrap my head around this. Are some of the posters actually saying that if something offends someone else it should not be allowed? Isn't that the whole point of this country? As a Christian I am offended that prayer is no longer aloud in school but nobody seems to listen to that point. If the flag offends someone I am truly sorry for that person. However, that is there opinion and feelings and while they are entitled to it I do not feel it should govern what someone else is allowed to do (in regards to the displaying of the flag).

 

I think only one person in this thread has suggested that the confederate flag should be banned. I think that we all understand that the Constitution gives people the right to display symbols freely, however repellent and offensive they may be to others.

 

What people have said is that, if you display the Confederate flag, at a minimum they know that you don't care that you're doing something which the majority of people of color find offensive, hurtful, or even threatening. Which is fine. It's a free country and you are not legally obligated to care about that.

 

Many people have said that the Confederate flag is not associated with racism in their minds, and that they don't display it for racist reasons. Okay. But you seem to want it not to be associated with racism in other people's minds, either, and I don't think you're entitled to that. You can't make it into a neutral symbol, not after its history and widespread present use as a symbol of white supremacy. You can't make people not think about that stuff when they see you displaying the Confederate flag.

[leeannpal]

:thumbup:

 

I hope you and Sis feel that way about those Northern slave owners, including several of the Founding Fathers.

 

I think slavery in any sense is abhorrent, but to focus on only one area of the U.S., you are negating all the years of slavery on American soil in other parts of the country.

 

Fwiw, the colony of Georgia was founded by men from England who outlawed slavery. It wasn't legal in Georgia until the mid-1700's. Slavery was very much legal and practiced in most of the other colonies including New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

[Slartibartfast]

I hope you and Sis feel that way about those Northern slave owners, including several of the Founding Fathers.

 

I think slavery in any sense is abhorrent, but to focus on only one area of the U.S., you are negating all the years of slavery on American soil in other parts of the country.

 

Fwiw, the colony of Georgia was founded by men from England who outlawed slavery. It wasn't legal in Georgia until the mid-1700's. Slavery was very much legal and practiced in most of the other colonies including New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

 

I think everyone knows that?

 

John Adams did not own slaves, everyone else pretty much did.

 

Oh..here is a list

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

 

Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Oliver Elisworth, Roger Sherman, Robert Paine.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Sis

[Alveraz]

I think only one person in this thread has suggested that the confederate flag should be banned. I think that we all understand that the Constitution gives people the right to display symbols freely, however repellent and offensive they may be to others.

 

What people have said is that, if you display the Confederate flag, at a minimum they know that you don't care that you're doing something which the majority of people of color find offensive, hurtful, or even threatening. Which is fine. It's a free country and you are not legally obligated to care about that.

 

Many people have said that the Confederate flag is not associated with racism in their minds, and that they don't display it for racist reasons. Okay. But you seem to want it not to be associated with racism in other people's minds, either, and I don't think you're entitled to that. You can't make it into a neutral symbol, not after its history and widespread present use as a symbol of white supremacy. You can't make people not think about that stuff when they see you displaying the Confederate flag.

 

Well said.

[Alveraz]

I hope you and Sis feel that way about those Northern slave owners, including several of the Founding Fathers.

 

You're the one who keeps making this about geography. This is about a symbol and what it means to people.

 

There are racists all over the planet, no one said any different.

[leeannpal]

I am not discounting the horrors of the Holocaust, my point is that many downplay the horrors of American Slavery.

 

No one has true numbers of those who were killed or died due to abuse, because no one cared.

 

Some historians put the estimates at one billion people

 

I don't want to do the "worse atrocity" thing because I don't find it appropriate but my point is that many downplay the horrors of African slavery.

 

You said,

 

 

 

No? They ethical people paid wages, sure there were plenty of them but they paid.

 

Oh, my! I have no idea what books you are reading, but there were never even one billion slaves in the Triangular slave trade. At the time of the Civil War, there were about 4 million slaves in the U.S.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, my! I have no idea what books you are reading, but there were never even one billion slaves in the Triangular slave trade. At the time of the Civil War, there were about 4 million slaves in the U.S.

 

 

There were four centuries of slavery. Were we only counting part of them? weren't you just objecting to not counting them all?

[leeannpal]

You're the one who keeps making this about geography. This is about a symbol and what it means to people.

 

There are racists all over the planet, no one said any different.

 

"There is no difference between the Nazis and the Southern slave owners, the Southern slave owners just did things slower...four centuries and millions of people.

"

The above is a direct quote by SIS. I'm not making it about geograhy, she is. Evidently, the northern slave owners are not anathema to her, and they can not be compared to Nazis. Not only that, but the South was not involved in 4 centuries of slavery. In fact, the majority of slaves from Africa ended up in the West Indies and South America, not on North American soil.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade I don't love wikipedia because the articles can be edited by anyone, but I read this one, and it is sound. It might be very eye opening for some.

Edited August 4, 2011 by leeannpal

[leeannpal]

There were four centuries of slavery. Were we only counting part of them? weren't you just objecting to not counting them all?

 

This thread has been about the Confederate flag. Naturally, that limits the time frame and the area of the world. Yes, there was 4 centuries of the total slave trade. Of course, if you don't want to limit it at all, we need to go much further back in history.

[Alveraz]

Oh, my! I have no idea what books you are reading, but there were never even one billion slaves in the Triangular slave trade. At the time of the Civil War, there were about 4 million slaves in the U.S.

 

I can only assume the one billion number is cumulative over the period of the african slave trade with US involvement. They didn't just die here, they died in route and abroad over decades of enslavement.

[Slartibartfast]

This thread has been about the Confederate flag. Naturally, that limits the time frame and the area of the world. Yes, there was 4 centuries of the total slave trade. Of course, if you don't want to limit it at all, we need to go much further back in history.

 

 

Ok well then stop saying it wasn't just the South. :lol:

[mama2cntrykids]

In my ex-h case, yes, it represents *his* racist attitude. But...he's a doozy. There's a reason he's my ex:glare:.

[leeannpal]

I can only assume the one billion number is cumulative over the period of the african slave trade with US involvement. They didn't just die here, they died in route and abroad over decades of enslavement.

 

Check out this link. One billion wasn't even close.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

[leeannpal]

Ok well then stop saying it wasn't just the South. :lol:

 

Are you not getting that all the U.S. was involved in the slave trade at one time? I take issue with you singling out Southern slave owners are equal to Hitler. Why only Southern slave owners?

[Slartibartfast]

Check out this link. One billion wasn't even close.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

 

That article has been edited over 500 times, was anything of the edits by an actual scholar?

 

I believe what I said was "Scholars" not "any goofball with a computer"

 

Some of those edits were to add "N-word" nice.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Sis

[Cricket]

I haven't read all the replies. I grew up in the north but was born in the south and raised by Southern parents. We had a Confederate flag but we didn't display it. We were proud of our Southern heritage. One Flag Day my brother and I got the bright idea to hang the Confederate flag. It didn't come from a racist motivation, just "Hey! We are Southern!" My parents took it down as soon as they got home. They said that on Flag Day it was disrespectful to fly the Confederate flag because it could be seen as an insult to our nation. We didn't even realize it could be considered a racist symbol until we were older.

 

My kitchen has a southern/Louisiana theme. I have dried cuttings from a cotton plant in a basket and Cajun recipes on the wall and pictures of magnolias. I've thought that if I had a small Confederate flag I might hang that up too. But then I wonder what some of our AA house guests would think and think that I probably wouldn't. It would be out of respect for them and making my home a comfortable place for them to be not because *I* think it is racist emblem. Who knows though. If I asked them, they might not be offended at all.

 

Mrs. Mungo mentioned that someone in Oklahoma was putting Confederate flags over Native American emblems. That made me wonder why people aren't offended by Native American symbols. We've gone to pow wows before and have watched Apache dancers. Even though our ancestors were at war, I'm not offended by a Native American displaying his or her nation's flag. I don't think they are full of hatred toward America and wish us dead. I just think they are proud of their heritage. I guess I put the Confederate flag in that category when I see it on trucks or T-shirts. Maybe that's another red herring? :) If someone was defacing private property and targeting certain groups with Native American symbols I might see it differently. I guess it is all in how it is used.

[Alveraz]

Check out this link. One billion wasn't even close.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

 

Well then, that settles it. All is forgiven and the fact it's gone from one billion to 12 million makes everything ok now. Looks like the flag is symbolic of pride and humanity after all. Glad you cleared that up for us. Boy, if it was one billion I sure would have been upset. 12 million is nothing!

[Slartibartfast]

Are you not getting that all the U.S. was involved in the slave trade at one time? I take issue with you singling out Southern slave owners are equal to Hitler. Why only Southern slave owners?

 

This is just a red herring, I have said both American as well as Southern in this thread. I don't hate the south. That is silly. I already said I have ancestors who were southern slave owners.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Sis

[leeannpal]

That article has been edited over 500 times, was anything of the edits by an actual scholar?

 

As I said, I don't like wikipedia in general, but I've taught American History long enough to know that the information is generaly accurate. Look, history is my thing. I genuinely love the stories of the people and events. Much is history is ugly, vile and disgusting, and yet I think it is dangerous to go around comparing everything to Hitler. Besides, there were quite a few other people in History who caused the death of more people. America's history is slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc. is awful. That doesn't negate the fact that many Southerners had ancestors who fought and died in the Civil War. Some people really do see the Confederate flag as a symbol of Southern pride. I don't and will not display it for the connotations that it has today.

Edited August 4, 2011 by leeannpal

[Upward Journey]

:iagree: If it were up to me we would. Even though Florida is considered part of the South it is a different culture which is fine just not as friendly to an ultra conservative Jesus loving family!

 

You must be in the wrong part of Fl ;)

[Slartibartfast]

As I said, I don't like wikipedia in general, but I've taught American History long enough to know that the infrmation is generaly accurate.

 

I have taken enough history classes to not automatically be impressed because someone who has taught history believes a wiki article to be "accurate"

 

Are your credentials in the precise topic? Because I think to make that assessment it would require a specialty as well as sociology/anthropology right?

 

For all I know "taught American History" means someone is teaching 1st graders trite Thanksgiving pageants. That is part of why my kid isn't in public school.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Sis

[leeannpal]

I have taken enough history classes to not automatically be impressed because someone who has taught history believes a wiki article to be "accurate"

 

Are your credentials in the precise topic? Because I think to make that assessment it would require a specialty as well as sociology right?

 

I'm surprised you would even care on a homeschooling board. What do credentials mean? However, you asked. I have a master's degree in social sciences including sociology, politcal science, economics, history, geography and anthropology. For the past 6 years, my students have participated in National History Day, and several of them have completed topics requiring extensive research on the Civil War time period. This year, a group of my students won the National History Day state of Georgia competition for group documentary and competed at nationals at the University of Maryland in May. I would not call myself an expert on any time period, but I've certainly put in a lot of time and research on American history.

 

Junior Group Documentaries

1st Place: Reed P, Sam D, Ben P, Nolan L.

“The Bombing of Darwin: Turning Japanese Destruction into an Australian-American Alliance”

Gatewood School, Lee Ann Thibeault, Teacher

 

The above is from the Georgia Humanities NHD website

Edited August 4, 2011 by leeannpal

[Slartibartfast]

I'm surprised you would even care on a homeschooling board. What do credentials mean? However, you asked. I have a master's degree in social sciences including sociology, politcal science, economics, history, geography and anthropology. For the past 6 years, my students have participated in National History Day, and several of them have completed topics requiring extensive research on the Civil War time period. This year, a group of my students won the National History Day state of Georgia competition for group documentary and competed at nationals at the University of Maryland in May. I would not call myself an expert on any time period, but I've certainly put in a lot of time and research on American history.

 

You are the one who is saying over and over that you have "taught American History" You said it more than once in this thread.

 

I would not question your credentials had you not quickly assessed a wiki article as "accurate" without careful study. Do you have a large focus in the African slave trade in particular?

[leeannpal]

You are the one who is saying over and over that you have "taught American History" You said it more than once in this thread.

 

I would not question your credentials had you not quickly assessed a wiki article as "accurate" without careful study.

 

I didn't quickly assess it. I read it.

 

I can guarantee that if you want to bring up a topic about Eugenics or Algebra or even stock market practices, I would be nowhere to be found. But most of us do have an area of interest and knowledge, and, for me, that happens to be te socal sciences, except that I really don't care much for political science.

Edited August 4, 2011 by leeannpal

[tntgoodwin]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp

 

Walter Williams speaking in code, obviously.

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm curious about this. Why would you fear local and state more? You as an individual voter have much more say in those smaller elections. Plus, as you mentioned, if you don't like something, you could move to another state/county/town. When the federal gov't does something poorly, every state, county and town is subject to that bad decision.

 

You must not be a minority in a majority state... otherwise you would not need to ask. Others said it was easier to move to another state, rather than move to another country. I don't see it that way. One tends to be tied to an area due to their job and/or family.

 

I do vote, and take part in local elections, though you should see the jokers who run (both parties). I'd really love an example of an awesomely run state government, haven't heard of one yet. I tend to believe both local and fed are a mess. No one works together. It's all about winning elections and getting $$ from special interests. It's no different on the state level.

[Slartibartfast]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp

 

Walter Williams speaking in code, obviously.

 

Why didn't you just quote Rush Limbaugh? Did you think people wouldn't recognize who Walter Williams is?

[MSNative]

You must not be a minority in a majority state... otherwise you would not need to ask. Others said it was easier to move to another state, rather than move to another country. I don't see it that way. One tends to be tied to an area due to their job and/or family.

 

I do vote, and take part in local elections, though you should see the jokers who run (both parties). I'd really love an example of an awesomely run state government, haven't heard of one yet. I tend to believe both local and fed are a mess. No one works together. It's all about winning elections and getting $$ from special interests. It's no different on the state level.

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I thought it had gotten buried. :)

 

I move a lot for promotions and for new jobs. I have lived in blue, red and purple states. I have also moved overseas. Trust me, moving to a new state is way easier. But you do raise a good point. I have never understood the people who will not move. Not saying you are one of these, just that you raised the point. I would prefer to live in certain areas and live near family, but since I couldn't find a job in my hometown, I left.

 

I used to live in Atl, so I do know what kinda interesting candidates you have. ;) I used to live in Illinois and NY, so trust me, Atl has no monopoly on bad candidates. Sadly, I don't think that the nuts and bad candidates are only in local elections. The federal elections have some whackadoodles, too.

 

I completely agree that it's not diff. on a state level. I just prefer that the state and local politicians have a smaller sphere of influence and I can move when they make life too miserable (one reason why I left Atl, Il, and NY.)

 

Someone else said that it is easy to criticize politicians but not actually run yourself. I was just talking to someone else about that. Even if I did have the money and desire to run, I never would put myself or my family through the horrible process. Mudslinging, lying, innuendo, etc. The media will do whatever to sell news and the other side will do whatever to win. (by other side I mean any opponent, not one political party) Unfortunately, I think it will get harder to find decent candidates because of that.

[MSNative]

Why didn't you just quote Rush Limbaugh? Did you think people wouldn't recognize who Walter Williams is?

 

Hope they do. Walter Williams is an accomplished economist. He's brilliant. You may not agree with him, but the man is no academic lightweight.

Link to his bio page at GMU.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/vita.html

[Laurie4b]

Are you not getting that all the U.S. was involved in the slave trade at one time? I take issue with you singling out Southern slave owners are equal to Hitler. Why only Southern slave owners?

 

I think she is saying because this thread is about the Confederate flag, therefore about the South. not the North. I don't think anyone was excluding northern slave owners---no one appears to be defending them on this thread. Some people are saying the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism. Others are saying because states seceeding said they were seceding over slavery, then it is inherently racist. The OP asked whether each of us thought the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism. She didn't ask if people thought the Union was equivalent to the 12 apostles or whether the Union fought primarily against slavery or for their economic interest. Those issues are actually irrelevant to the OP's question. It wasn't : Who was the better group of people morally--the Union or the Confederates? It is about the Confederate flag and racism.

[Slartibartfast]

Hope they do. Walter Williams is an accomplished economist. He's brilliant. You may not agree with him, but the man is no academic lightweight.

Link to his bio page at GMU.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/vita.html

 

He is a well known conservative Libertarian political commentator. He fills in for Limbaugh sometimes. In essence, he is not an unbiased source

[hana]

Are you not getting that all the U.S. was involved in the slave trade at one time? I take issue with you singling out Southern slave owners are equal to Hitler. Why only Southern slave owners?

 

 

Wow, this thread has taken a turn. Certainly, the North was involved, to some degree as slaveholders and to a large degree as consumers of the products of slave labor. And I would certainly say that Boston slave traders, for example, were just as a big a concern as the Southern slave owners.

[Harriet Vane]

He is a well known conservative Libertarian political commentator. He fills in for Limbaugh sometimes. In essence, he is not an unbiased source

 

I do not know Walter Williams. However, I just want to point out that there are NO unbiased sources. Human beings are biased.

[tntgoodwin]

He is a well known conservative Libertarian political commentator. He fills in for Limbaugh sometimes. In essence, he is not an unbiased source

 

I don't like Rush. I hope everyone knows who Walter Williams is. Every human is biased.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't like Rush. I hope everyone knows who Walter Williams is. Every human is biased.

 

Every human isn't paid for political commentary.

[lauraeden]

I guess it would depend on context but I would probably wonder about it.....

I'm relatively new to the South and don't get the yearning for pre-Civil War days.

[zenjenn]

Her stance is no more crazy than your rationale to prove which evil is "less wrong".

 

There are some people who believe that all sins are created equal, theologically. I am not one of them. I firmly believe in gradations of sin/evil/wrongdoing. If you believe anything is worse, clearly 20th century mass systematic genocide by a single generation is worse than slavery practiced by a single generation, that existed as a result of a hundreds-of-years-old environment of lawless trade and labor.

 

Again judgement should be made in the context of time, society, and culture. There are realities about the way people treated women or children that we would consider misogynistic, abusive, endangering, by 21st century standards, but that doesn't mean every human who asked a bride price for his daughter or had his children work 12 hours a day hundreds of years ago was a misogynistic child abuser.

 

Those of you are are convinced that the Confederate flag is unilaterally racist I'm sure think of yourselves as tolerant, open-minded, accepting people, are those quickest to malign people historically and in the present with quite a broad brush without trying to understand the motive, perspective, and context of various individuals, cultures, and situations. :confused:

 

Again, I am in agreement that the Confederate flag has become a symbol of racism to many, and enough time has passed where displaying this flag in casual context should wane and be eliminated, but I also don't think it is appropriate to lash out with vitriol and one of the worst of labels (racist) of every person who might display such a flag.

 

Sometimes they are racist. Sometimes they are not racist but insensitive, and sometimes they are not racist but unaware of how deep the connotations are to others.

Edited August 5, 2011 by zenjenn

[Slartibartfast]

There are some people who believe that all sins are created equal, theologically. I am not one of them. I firmly believe in gradations of sin/evil/wrongdoing. If you believe anything is worse, clearly 20th century mass systematic genocide is worse than slavery that existed as a result of a hundreds-of-years-old environment of lawless trade and labor.

 

Again judgement should be made in the context of time, society, and culture. There are realities about the way people treated women or children that we would consider misogynistic, abusive, endangering, by 21st century standards, but that doesn't mean every human who asked a bride price for his daughter or had his children work 12 hours a day hundreds of years ago was a misogynistic child abuser.

 

 

But, I don't think the people of that time saw themselves as such, did they not believe they were enlightened? Even Thomas Jefferson had slaves and I don't think anyone today sees him as a backwoods redneck. Patrick Henry is known to have written, "Give me Liberty of Give Me Death!" but he had slaves.

 

Many of them wrote about slavery and its evils but they continued to perpetuate it. I would think many of them just as enlightened and educated as many in the twentieth century.

 

Also it isn't *just* slavery but abuse and murder. If it was *just* slavery would it be seen differently? Maybe, but we know that isn't the case.

 

Those of you are are convinced that the Confederate flag is unilaterally racist I'm sure think of yourselves as tolerant, open-minded, accepting people, are those quickest to malign people historically and in the present with quite a broad brush without trying to understand the motive, perspective, and context of various individuals, cultures, and situations. :confused:

 

I do see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism. I do so because it is a symbol of a fight over basic human rights and whether or not a race of people deserved those rights.

 

That might be seen as intolerant but I also do not have the privilege of seeing it through white eyes. I am not white, I see the Confederate flag as a menacing threat placed to warn against my presence.

 

Sometimes they are racist. Sometimes they are not racist but insensitive, and sometimes they are not racist but unaware of how deep the connotations are to others.

But honestly, I am not going to wait around to find out. Edited August 5, 2011 by Sis

[Spy Car]

I'm lilly-white, and I see racial hate as a threat to everything I believe in.

 

The Confererate flag is a hate symbol. It causes some people to fear that they will be the objects of violence, and for others it is a way to openly express their bigotry.

 

Bill