Blaakmaan
Posts: 374
Joined: 5/21/2007
Status: offline
|
[The Dilemma: How much to participate in this debate without wasting my whole life...?]
OK, here goes:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Slavery was not the main issue in the civil war, in fact some southern states had already aboished it, Florida at the very least. But there were more. They were in fact "federalizing" in the north and expected the states to just go along with it. After the civil war, certain things happened, first of all an amendment to the national Constitution was ratified, the civil war was perfect to get rid of this problem. This was called the Titles Of Nobility Act.
Sorry, Termyn8or. Slavery was, absolutely, the prime cause of the Civil War. That's not just my opinion, it's historical fact:
Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war. But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict.
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=civil+war+causes&fr=ytff1-&u=www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm&w=civil+war+causes+cause&d=cHK-1_4-PQok&icp=1&.intl=us
Additionally, I think you have your facts wrong.
I don't believe that Florida, or any of the states that would become part of the Confederacy, abolished slavery at any time before they were forced to by the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution after the Confederacy lost the war:
Slavery was one of the most divisive political issues in the Congress of the United States in the early 19th century. Many Congress members from the Northern states pressed to end slavery, both because it was considered immoral and because white labor could not compete with unpaid black labor. Members from Florida and the other Deep South states believed that slavery was essential to their cotton-based agricultural system and that the North was trying to dominate the national economy.
By the 1850s, Southerners saw their power slipping in Congress, the clamor by Northern abolitionists—those who wanted an immediate and total end to slavery—was at a high pitch, and many white Floridians came to believe that secession from the Union was the only way to protect “Southern rights,” including the right to own slaves.
After South Carolina seceded from the Union in December 1860, Florida’s proslavery Democratic Party demanded the state’s immediate secession from the Union, and in January 1861 Florida officially seceded. The next month, after seven states had seceded, they organized as the Confederate States of America and began mobilizing for war. The American Civil War began officially on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery bombarded a federal fort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=florida+slavery&fr=ytff1-&u=encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557601_13/Florida.html&w=florida+slavery&d=Tz4YLf4-PYBi&icp=1&.intl=us
If I'm wrong, show me!
quote:
Don't take what I said as a given. Actually DO the google searches I suggested and then talk to me. For 40 years before Lincoln's election there was talk about disunion. But it was about tariffs that taxed imported goods the south needed while similar taxes on the industrial north were lax or absent. Wouldn't you fight being singled out like that? It was about Federal laws coming out that (arguably) violated state autonomy. It was about a fundimental disagreement of the interpretation of the constitution. But yes you are right. The slavery thing was the tipping point. But alot lead up to it. To suggest that southerners were all happy and dandy til Lincoln stopped by is just stupid. Also I'm not sure how many 'reputable historians' you know but please provide us readers with links so we can see your references.
Lastly your closing statement is of particular interest.... "And, anyway, whatever the truth of your point may be," (because you didn't actually search it, and dismiss the possiblity that I have a point) .."the Confederate flag certainly doesn't stand for resistance to the exploitation of southern resources by the north, does it?"... That's the part you dont get. Yeah, it does.That's the history that makes it the "rebel flag".
quote:
ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan
OK, ChicagoSwitchMal. Let's take what you said as a given.
If Lincoln hadn't won the election of 1860, sparking southern fears that slavery would be contained or even abolished, would the southern states have attempted to seceed because of "the exploitaton of southern resources by the north"?
I think not. And I don't know of any reputable historian who thinks so, either.
And, anyway, whatever the truth of your point may be, the Confederate flag certainly doesn't stand for resistance to the exploitation of southern resources by the north, does it?
ChicagoSwitchMal
OK, ChicagoSwitchMal. I'm not here for you to give me assignments!
If you want me to see the "evidence" that you believe supports your arguments, you do the Google searches and you present them! Like I did, above.
Don't expect me to do searches to find out what in the hell you're relying on to prove your point! You do the work!
quote:
The confederate flag symbolizes those who fought and died to preserve the Constitutionally guaranteed power of the individual state control over centralized federal control.
Slavery was not ended until 2 years into the war, only in the states in rebellion, and only because France and England refused to assist Lincoln in his war until he outlawed slavery.
Try to keep the facts straight about the war of secession in the United States.
Slavery in the United States was outlawed after the war.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan
the confederate flag symbolizes those who fought and died to preserve the institution of slavery.
Sinergy
Now, this is absolute, total, utter BS!
The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the States then in rebellion against the government of the United States. It was only effective in those areas in those States that were then under the control of the Union Army.
Of course slavery was outlawed after the war! Until the Confederacy was militarily conquered, the federal government could not enforce anything in those states! Just how could it have been otherwise???
England and France did not enter the war on the side of the Confederacy precisely because Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made the war a war against slavery instead of a war against secession. Had England and France seen the war as you frame it, they might well have entered the war on the side of the Confederacy. But they didn't.
Nobody calls the Civil War a "war of secession" except die-hard Confederates. Is that you?
How about you try to keep your facts straight???
quote:
ORIGINAL: HotFaerieMama
as as white southern girl who grew up in a trailer went to schools that are diverse i was called every name in the book and i think it is stupid and wrong to make assumptions of someone based on what they wear or look like i do not judge at all untill i have met them and actually know them. i do wear shirts with dixie on them does that make me "white trash" or an "racist asshole" no it does not. if i wear a malcom x shirt would that mean that i am racist against my own kind no it dosen't making judgements based on what you see and not getting to know the person is really stupid. i would know i've had it done to me my whole life.
Your "if i wear a malcom x shirt would that mean that i am racist against my own kind" comment only demonstrates your ignorance of Malcolm X and his beliefs. Malcolm X certainly (and justifiably, in my view) excoriated whites for their racism, and their horribly racist deeds. I wouldn't, myself, consider Malcolm X to be a racist. I think it's clear that he wasn't a racist by the time he died, if he ever was. The Malcolm X you're talking about is a caricature of the real thing.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
I didn't say it wasn't offensive to some people.
Merely that it is wrong to prevent someone from doing something ONLY because someone finds it offensive.
However, LuckyAlbatross, the question that spawned this debate was is a confederate flag t-shirt offensive. Not, is it right or wrong to prevent someone from wearing a confederate flag t-shirt because it's offensive.
And the answer is, yes, it's offensive. To me, its very offensive.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne
it amazes me how much a hot button issue this is.......and i respect each persons opinion....
but ill stick to mine-the south is where i am from, i love all its strangeness and symbols, i dont get offended when called a redneck, as i am secure enough in who i am for it not to bother me. this is a subject that no one will change their minds on....
if someone saw me wearing a shirt from the local hunting store-that had a rebel flag hangin behind the deer on it-and decided that makes me an idiotic hillbilly-that is their choice....and id bet theyre not someone id enjoy being around anyhow. everyone doesnt like everyone-aint it great we can all be different in this country?
this is totally out in left field-and im sure ill get flamed at for it but here goes...
wiitwd offends many......wear some symbol of it and some would look at you and think thats an abuser or a slut....if the symbol had the press of the rebel flag....they would look uopn you and assume you were a horrible person, deviant, wacko, pick yer moniker....
this symbol (collar, pin, shirt, wtfe) means to you i am happy with who i am and not ashamed of it. but they cant see youre a great mom or dad, work 50 hours a week and volunteer at a homeless shelter-only a symbol of your perversion....so therefore you are evil and not worthy of their time.........
i am offended by pants that hang low enough to show the boxers the man is wearing.....the cop that came to talk to the kids at my school told them it began in prison, as symbols of availability to homosexual sex.....another cop said it began as a protest by men in prison who were mad they didnt get pants that fit them when issued a jail uniform......therefore, all men making this fashion choice must be ex cons......i shall start running when i see them and assume theyre dangerous....
thats logical huh?
Actually, it's offensive for you to compare the offense you might feel at somebody's pants hanging below their waist to the offense I and many, many others feel at the Confederate flag. That just demonstrates that you don't get how offensive that flag is.
Think "swastika." For some reason, that's a lot easier for some of you to understand...
As far as symbols of BDSM are concerned, I don't think most people would be offended by them--they'll just think you're weird!
quote:
ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
I have found this a very interesting thread....a couple of points
Strange how some, who presumably oppose "racism", can use comments like white trash.
The Flag is a symbol and it is not possible to know what are the motives of those who display that symbol simply by viewing that display Is it ? Swastica excepted
The US civil war was basically about Union and Political Control of the Economy, but because the Southern economy was agricultural and used slave labour that fact was used as an emotional club to further the North's cause.
The Brit. economy suffered by the blockades imposed by the dastardly (lol) Northerners and in fact we came close to intervening on the Confederate side. We wanted to get our own back after earlier "mishaps"
To Domiguy in particular I was talking about the oppression of Black on Black in Africa which is still happening as a matter of fact.
Again, you can get the swastika, but you can't get anything else...
As far as black-on-black oppression in Africa is concerned, yes, it certainly exists. But, don't feel special about that! White-on-white oppression has existed in Europe since there's been a Europe! Let's not forget Serbia, Yugoslavia, and Kosovo!
quote:
ORGINAL: NeedToUseYou
I think I'm pretty much immune to most symbols anymore. Burn the flag if you want to, by the manner in which you burn it, and the statements before and after it should be pretty clear if you burned it out of hate or frustration. Wear the rebel flag, it should be be plenty clear if you are wearing it out of pride of southern heritage, or because you hate blacks soon enough. Wear baggy jeans, and prison inspired fashions, it should become clear pretty rapidly if you idolize criminals or just have a bad sense of fashion quick enough. Speak of Black Pride, or White Pride, and shortly enough it become clear if you mean Black/White supremacy or if you mean pride in our races past.
Most symbols and or words do have more than one meaning and even common slogans can mean different things to different people. However, the people that are just as bad as racist, IMO, impose their single meaning of the symbol on to all of those that may use that symbol. That is nearly the same as racism in my view. The arguments based on history break down at a certain point, as symbols meanings aren't cast in stone.
A swastika is still pretty universal in its meaning because of the shear volume and constant use in a consistent manner via media portrayals. The southern flag well, there are several valid meanings to it, along with other symbols.
Once again, you get the meaning of the swastika, but somehow everything else is ambivalent!
Speaking as an African-American man, that Confederate flag is the functional equivalent of a swastika!
Just let me say this: If you pulled up in my neighborhood (or even worse, to my house!) bearing that Confederate flag, you would do well to be a fast runner!
quote:
ORIGINAL: eyesopened
Okay, i'm one of those "damn" yankees who moved to South Carolina after having been raised a Swedish-decent Lutheran in Minnesota... was raised to see racism as an atrocity and the N word held equal punishment in my childhood home as saying the F word. i was taught only the ignorant and the crass would think or talk like that.
One of the first things i noticed when i moved here is that EVERYthing is race related and that it is nearly a crime to be caucasion or non Baptist. My UMs were called "white boy" and "white girl" every single day even by teachers and bus drivers. My daughter's best friend was not allowed to even come to our house because we are white and the friend was black. Recently a hiring decision i made at work was challenged by one of the internal applicants and the FIRST thing the HR director asked me was if the woman i hired was black. Had i hired a white person i would have had to make a written statement to defend that decision. Luckily i hired a black woman.
i can honestly say that 95% of the racism i've experienced since i moved here has been hatred toward whites.
The problem with symbols is that any symbol can be offensive to someone. Doing away with one symbol and another takes its place. Maybe a certain amount not taking symbols so seriously coupled with being more sensitive to others would result in more tolerance. Maybe seeing people as more alike than different would help. Name calling has never been productive.
Well, you're a white man, aren't you? Just how would you "experience" white hatred toward blacks???
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
This wasnt the case prior to the revolution. More white people were indentured servants, ie white slaves, than black people. Most left their homelands due to religious persecution or because they were convicts. Here in the UK if you were caught stealing to feed your family, the choice was " Do you want to hang or be removed to the Colonies " Guess which people " Chose" The founding fathers left England not for a better life but to escape persecution.
As far as the flag is concerned, it`s a bit of a generalisation to call everyone displaying it white scum.
"Indentured servants, i.e., white slaves"???
There were fundamental differences between indentured servants and slaves!
An indentured servant willingly entered into his agreement to serve his or her "master" for a definite period of years. In exchange for his or her service for those years, an indentured servant received free passage from Europe to America.
An indentured servant could, after the indenture was completely served, go on to be a property-owning (even a slave-owning), voting, full member of society. Often, at the end of his or her service, an indentured servant received his or her own plot of land to work.
Does that sound like slavery as blacks knew it in America? I don't think so!
While an indentured servant's period of indenture was settled and finite, a slave served his or her master until the day he or she died! While an indentured servant's status did not pass down to his or her children, the child of a slave was, by definition, a slave. A slave's status as slave was inherited, and a slave could not escape his status until he was freed by his owner, or was allowed to purchase his freedom, or escaped from slave territory. The status passed down, from generation to generation, in perpetuity, until slavery was abolished!
An indentured servant had rights. As the Supreme Court famously ruled, a slave had "no rights a white man need respect."
So, let's not talk about indentured servants and slaves as though the two statuses were equivalent, ok?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
The problem is (and I come from a southern upbringing) that those who see the Confederate Battle Flag as a heritage thing have failed to protect it from being coopted by those racists who have been using it as a symbol of racisim.
The shear numbers of KKK and other white supremicists who have been using it outweighs the ones who have maintained it as a matter of respect for the bravery of the soldiers. We those who would love to believe it is a symbol of bravery of the soldiers who in no small measure were non slave owners, and were fighting for in large part states rights vs federal government power, have unfortunatly waited and watched too long as the Confederate Battle Flag has been perverted.
I'm afraidd it has been neglected too long to recover it.
Now, that's an interesting post, Archer!
quote:
ORIGINAL: IvoryMaster
It seems "tolerance" has become a vague term to be utilized and thrown about without any actual understanding of its definition. Tolerance is not to be employed as matter of convenience or political correctness, it must be employed universally despite what the State or the Individual believes. Personally, I think it is poor taste to utilize the Confederate flag for anything other than historical purposes, but it falls under freedom of expression. While I may find a person's motives for displaying the flag curious, I do not automatically condemn them. Havinf lived in India for almost 2 yrs, I became acutely aware of the ubiquity of the swastika, a prominent symbol in Hinduism. Obviously, for a Westerner, the association with Nazism was still lingering in my mind, but that was clearly not the intention of those displaying the symbol. Instead of making knee jerk judgements, perhaps we should assess the individual's motives and reasoning before condemning them. I believe that is a hallmark of "tolerance". As ridiculous as it sounds, I doubt anyone would harbor any ill sentiments towards the Dukes of Hazard and the General Lee, an amusing icon of the 1980's.
It may surprise you, but I always had a problem with a television show where the stars drive a car called the "General Lee" emblazoned with a red confederate flag on the hood! I know who General Lee was, what he fought for, and what that flag represents!
However, because Daisy Dukes had such nice legs, I was in a forgiving mood...
The question was is a confederate flag t-shirt offensive? I think you can see from the posts on the subject that it is, at least to many African-Americans.
To me, that case is closed!
If you don't want to see that, I can't make you, and I wouldn't bother trying. You'll see what you want to see, and you won't see what you would prefer not to see!
With respect to many of you, I can't help but wonder, why it's so damned hard to see what's right in front of your face?
|
RE: Heritage or Hate? - 
Profile
there is no way it would be tolerated to perpetuate such ignorant stereotypes against any other racial group here in these forums. If you sat down and talked about poor black men by listing negative assumptions like these, you'd be a horrible racist. You really would. Yet somehow, when the poor man is white, it's hilarious to make fun. Why can no one else see how wrong and ridiculous that is? I guess because we live in a society where poor white "trash" is still the only group that it's not only accepted to make fun of but considered funny. Thanks Jeff Foxworthy
. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread