# Teen Sues Over Confederate Flag Prom Dress



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2004)

* Teen Sues Over Confederate Flag Prom Dress *





*Author: *AP   *Source: *CNN 




*Title: *TEEN SUES OVER CONFEDERATE FLAG PROM DRESS 









A teenager is suing her school district for barring her from the prom last spring because she was wearing a dress styled as a large Confederate battle flag.

 The lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court claims the Greenup County district and administrators violated Jacqueline Duty's First Amendment right to free speech and her right to celebrate her heritage at predominantly white Russell High School's prom May 1. She also is suing for defamation, false imprisonment and assault.

    "Her only dance for her senior prom was on the sidewalk to a song playing on the radio," said her lawyer, Earl-Ray Neal.

    Duty, 19, is seeking actual and punitive damages in excess of $50,000. 
*Options:*   [*Read Full Story*]
*Original Thread: Wrens Nest*


----------



## auxprix (Dec 25, 2004)

This young lady should just give up. No matter how the courts work out, she still loses. A confederate flag dress... how tacky. I mean, even my date had the decent enough taste to go with the Union Jack.

Jokes aside, she should have been able to wear it, but I'm not going to allow myself to care. And come on...$50,000? I'd be interested to see what these "actual" damages are.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 25, 2004)

I agree ... she has every right to be an insensitive caucasion. Nothin' quite like disregarding one of the most long lasting symbols of oppression and slavery. I even hope she wins the battle. Perhaps soon, this war will finally come to a close.


Mike


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 25, 2004)

Want to know why she's going to lose?
An interesting companion article from today's NY Times:

*Signs of Confederacy Are Vanishing in the South*

[size=-1]*By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS *[/size]




Published: December 25, 2004






ITTLE ROCK, Ark., Dec. 24 (AP) - From renaming Confederate Boulevard in Arkansas to shrinking "Heart of Dixie" on Alabama's license plates, the South is slowly erasing reminders of its Civil War past for fear of offending tourists and scaring off business.

"Business people and tourists don't know what to think about slavery, elitism, the Civil War," said Ted Ownby of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture at the University of Mississippi. "So one way is to give them an easy out. We'll change the name of this building, this street, change this display."

Over the last few years, more and more references to the Confederacy seem to be vanishing around the South. At Vanderbilt University in Nashville last year, Confederate Memorial Hall became simply Memorial Hall. The University of Mississippi dropped "Colonel Rebel" as its on-field mascot. Georgia reduced, and then eventually removed, a Confederate symbol from its state flag. 

In Little Rock, the switch from Confederate Boulevard to Springer Boulevard was made in November, just before the opening of Bill Clinton's presidential library.

John Shelton Reed, a professor emeritus at the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina, said that the trend was clear, and that business interests coupled with concern among blacks were the catalysts.

"Businesses named Dixie this and Dixie that, there are fewer of them than there used to be," Professor Shelton said. "If you're a business person, why do you want a name that's going to raise anybody's hackles?"

Mayor Jim Dailey of Little Rock said the Confederate Boulevard sign was changed after city officials noted that it was often the first thing visitors saw after arriving at the Little Rock airport. With the world's eyes on the opening of the Clinton library last month, and with millions of tourism dollars at stake, the city sought a different first impression.

Ron Casteel, chief of staff for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, called the removal of rebel reminders a "disgusting trend."

"We honor everyone else's traditions and heritage: why should we discriminate against Confederate heritage?" Mr. Casteel said. 

Larry Griffin, a sociology and history professor at the University of North Carolina, said that the symbols should be placed in context.

"We don't want to rewrite the past so moments are silenced or hidden," Professor Griffin said. "The past needs to be observed and engaged, warts and all. There are places that would be proper sites for these kinds of symbols. It could be in a museum, in a national park or any of the Civil War battlefields."


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 25, 2004)

I wouldn't think one way or another about her dress, it was tacky to begin with, flag notwithstanding. 
Yes, the confederate states were responsible for most of the slavery and oppression and bla bla bla. But if they want to ban a flag just because it represents all of those things then they need to ban the Union Jack, French, Spain and the Stars and Stripes as well since those countries (among others) were involved in the slavery trade as well. Just as bad. 
True, the confederate states were among the last to end the slavery trade at the end of the civil war, it doesn't make them more evil. I'm not advocating or trying to take sides because IMO there are no sides to this issue. 
Slavery is a done dead deal. Over and done with. Bad memories to be sure but it's P-A-S-T.  We need to know it happened, know that it was ended, look back on it -- shake our heads in sadness-- and move on.  
Blacks have long since proven themselves to be outstanding statesmen, policitans, business people, athletes, entertainers, soldiers/sailors/combat pilots, and so forth. They have moved up from being oppressed to being equals among those who held their ancestors in bondage.  
Dwelling upon it helps promote racism, dwelling upon the riots and horrible things that happened in the south (and elsewhere) during the late 50's and 60's helps keep racism alive.  Associating symbols to those events when they represented a lot more than just slavery promotes racism. 
I don't think the girl was promoting racism or slavery by wearing that god-awful dress. Because if she was wearing it for that purpose then she would've said so right? But then no-one is *that* stupid are they ? So basically they're going to have to go after the dress manufacturer as well as they would be just as guilty. 
I agree she shouldn't win her case but mainly because she showed up at a piviotal event in her life wearing a tacky dress.  I wonder if the blacks in her school had anything to say about it? If they were offended? 

I dunno :idunno:... am I missing something here?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 25, 2004)

She should win her case. The First Amendment to the Constitution supports free speech. 

In her case, she is using that freedom to declare her (apparent) pride in a symbol of treason, oppression, and slavery. She made this dress herself. She spent, as I understand it, four years planning to wear this dress. 

To compare the Confederate Flag to the Union Jack is not valid for this discussion. While the British lost a war to the United States, they were and remained an independent nation. The Confederate States lost the war in their attempt to succeed from the Union. As such, the continued display of the Stars and Bars is a continued expression of rebellion against the authority of the Union. (I remind you that one of the first actions taken by the United States after the invasion of Iraq was to create a new flag for that country). 

This issue is much bigger than the "blacks in her school". The Confederate Flag is a symbol of the most costly war in which this country ever engaged. More than 600,000 Americans died. 

Perhaps, this last paragraph from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address should be a special assignment for this young lady.



			
				Abraham Lincoln said:
			
		

> With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.


----------



## Satt (Dec 25, 2004)

I think the dress is pretty hot!!! He he. I would've taken her to my prom. I love a southern girl with pride!!! Let me at her!!!

artyon:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 26, 2004)

She should win her case... but what a dumbass thing to fixate on.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 26, 2004)

Well, a similar argument could be made against wearing a Catholic crucifix, as it represents an organization that was responsible for the Spanish Inquistion (not to mention it represents an ancient Roman form of torture and execution)...  
I personally think the PC movement has gone way too far. I'm sure many people in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq see the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of oppression. It's all a matter of perspective. Many Southerners had no involvement in slavery and see the Confederate flag as a symbol of pride in their heritage.

Jeff


----------



## Jay Bell (Dec 26, 2004)

I'm with Jeff.  Why is it that people automatically equate the Union Jack with slavery and racism?  There was a hell of a lot more to it then that..

Yet another liberal double standard.  Neat.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 26, 2004)

funny... I'm a liberal, and I agree with you.

I think that the effort to wipe out a large part of our nation's history is shortsited and just plain stupid.  The south has a lot to be proud of, and I've got no problem with confederate flags.  The symbol is a part of our history and shouldn't be forgotten.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 26, 2004)

People probably equate the Confederate Flag (which isn't a Union Jack, it's a version of the Cross of St. Andrew, though one could be wrong) with the Confederacy, with slavery, and with ongoing racism because of the century and a half of Klan marches, American Nazi imagery, racist attackers of civil rights, bumper stickers on pickup trucks driven by beer-swilling yahoos, "White Power," demonstrators, and assorted other displays by extreme right-wingers angry about integration in all its forms. 

It's ludicrous to claim that this Flag is simply a symbol of Southern independence vs. Northern capitalism. That isn't even remotely its history--and while this silly child has the right to wear whatever she pleases, it's a guarantee that she is NOT doing this merely to wear a, "symbol of pride in their heritage." 

Scratch this surface, and it's guaranteed that you find a white suprematist group. 

Two other points occur: a) there've been an awful lot of these, "civil rights," cases brought by white rightists lately; b) it'd be cool if all the black students showed up for the Prom in full Klan regalia (Kleagle and Cyclops level...much prettier colors) and all the other students showed up in clothes with, say, the lynched body of Emmett Till silk-screened on both sides.

Then we could see the Confederate Flag in its proper perspective.

'Course, better still would be if everybody just sighed and ignored her.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As such, the continued display of the Stars and Bars is a continued expression of rebellion against the authority of the Union.


So, of course, it should also be removed from Museums, not allowed on the Battlefield of Civil War Re-enactments, airbrushed out of text books, etc... correct?

After all, a prominent Chicago Museum has a Replica of an Old Chicago Street, including store fronts, brick streets, and hitching posts and lawn-jockeys... but the African-american population was offended by the lawn-jockeys IN THE MUSEUM, so instead of preserving the history as it was, they were painted white... 

So lets remove the confederate flag altogether as well, so as to be P.C. and not offend anyone... Cuz you know being PC is more important than, uh... THE TRUTH.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 26, 2004)

Nope, not at all. None of these images should be destroyed, or hidden.

And let's also not...ah, whitewash...what they mean, and what their history is, and why people use them.

Oh, and incidentally...let's try for better schools, in which kids learn both good history and decent manners.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nope, not at all. None of these images should be destroyed, or hidden.
> 
> And let's also not...ah, whitewash...what they mean, and what their history is, and why people use them.
> 
> Oh, and incidentally...let's try for better schools, in which kids learn both good history and decent manners.


 
*sound of tiger paws clapping*  Robertson, you rock -- in spite of yourself at times...

I agree with your assertion that 'this child' was wearing the dress to make a statement.  Otherwise, why spend four years of her life making it?

It's all I can do to not *utter* 'redneck', in spite of that country singer doing so well with her song stating that she is one.  The connotations of that lifestyle supersede being politically correct about it, to my way of thinking.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2004)

Wow. I agree with Robert for a change... whaddaya know.

Say...

Is the confederate flag prom dress:

a) Better than
b) the same as
c) Worse than

Malcom X hats and Tshirts.

After all, Up until 1964, He preached that whites were evil, and thereby the Malcom X clothing is ALSO perceivable as racist in nature... Yet I have not heard of it being banned anywhere...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 26, 2004)

1. Don't be so shocked. Mostly, I'm right--it's just that one's occasional spectacular screwups more than counterbalance this.

2. One agrees--it's odd that some of the folks who most vehemently wave that Stars and Bars are the very same folks who jump all OVER the slightest questioning of this country, let alone any namby-pamby flag-burning.

3. Malcolm X--unlike, say, Nathan Bedford Forrest--grew up. He changed, for the better--and gave his life, in part, for that change. Anybody know any of the Confederate Flag-wavers who can say as much?

4. Again: the history of that flag ties it intimately to the Klan, to Nazism in this country, to dogs and fire-hoses aimed at people who want to vote, to Goodman and Schwerner and Chaney. 

5. When, say, James Baldwin gets a flag, we can all wave that 'un.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 26, 2004)

Whatever the connotations of this redneck's dress may be, it remains a civil liberties (or is it civil rights?  I still don't have the distinction down pat; I know that there is one) issue.  The KKK are allowed to hold their rallies in the name of free speech, despite how ignorant and inciteful their message is.  The courts have allowed anti-war wristbands to be worn to school, despite their controversy during Vietnam.  As far as rights and courts are concerned, she should be allowed to wear the dress, no matter how backward the ideology that back's it is.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 26, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> I'm with Jeff. Why is it that people automatically equate the Union Jack with slavery and racism? There was a hell of a lot more to it then that..
> 
> Yet another liberal double standard. Neat.


Jay Bell ... the 'Union Jack' is a term for the British Flag. While there is a resemblence to the the Confederate flag, they are not now the same, nor ever were they. The common term for the Confederate Flag is the 'Stars and Bars', used in this thread by rmcrobertson and myself.

For a brief understanding of why the Confederate Flag is automatically equated with slavery and racism, you could review rmcrobertson's thoughtful posts, or perhaps visit Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. 

President Lincoln there stated that the battle fought there was part of a war testing whether any nation, concieved in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long endure. 

It may not have been the only reason for 618,000 American deaths, but it seems to me it was a doozy. 

I'll gladly listen to other arguments to counter Mister Lincoln's assessment.

Mike

Post Script ... Jay Bell, My apologies. ... The 'Stars and Bars' was the official Confederate Flag ... but not the one on the Dukes of Hazzard car. The Common flag we associate with the Confederate States is one of the Confederate Battle flags, known as the Navy Jack.

http://www.usflag.org/confederate.stars.and.bars.html


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 26, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So, of course, it should also be removed from Museums, not allowed on the Battlefield of Civil War Re-enactments, airbrushed out of text books, etc... correct?


That's not my suggestion. Those who don't know history, are doomed to repeat it. 



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> So lets remove the confederate flag altogether as well, so as to be P.C. and not offend anyone... Cuz you know being PC is more important than, uh... THE TRUTH.


I do think a critical eye should be turned to State Buildings where the flag is displayed. Not because of Political Correctness, but because the South Lost the civil war.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 26, 2004)

Okay you guys.  I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong  , but since when is the Confederate States of America a viable entity as a nation/state/whatever?  And, therefore, why should their flag be allowed to fly?

Just *aksin*, as them good ole boys would say...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Okay you guys.  I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong  , but since when is the Confederate States of America a viable entity as a nation/state/whatever?  And, therefore, why should their flag be allowed to fly?



The CSA were a viable entity until their rebellion was crushed well over a hundred years ago, and haven't been since.

And people fly all kinds of flags -- for corporations and clubs -- that have nothing to do with state or nationhood.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

It is funny how Malcolm X *always* comes up in these discussions.  One of the few African-Americans who educated himself, rose out of his environment, confronted white America directly with the same hatred and threats of violence he and his people had faced for *centuries*, and suddenly you can justify any number of terrible racist acts...

No matter, of course, as Robert pointed out, that Malcolm X actually grew up and died for it.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 27, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The CSA were a viable entity until their rebellion was crushed well over a hundred years ago, and haven't been since.
> 
> And people fly all kinds of flags -- for corporations and clubs -- that have nothing to do with state or nationhood.


And those flags don't fly outside government buildings, do they?  Or are you just running me up a flagpole...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> And those flags don't fly outside government buildings, do they?  Or are you just running me up a flagpole...



Me?  Do that?  Surely you joust, KT.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 27, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Me? Do that? Surely you joust, KT.


Nope.  I only tilt at windmills.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2004)

This era of growning 'correctness' is become stifling.  Some argue racism, some pride.  Most people have no real understanding of the buildup, causes, and fallout of the American Civil War.  To most, it's that slavery thing, and Lincoln is a hero. All those who fought for the south must be racist traitors.  I'm sorry, it's not that cut and dried.

In Germany, all reference to Hitler, and the Nazi party is illegal.  Use of any symbology is subject to prosecution.
In Japan, WWII and Japans part in it is mostly hidden away.  It is not a topic for discussion.

The US is rapidly trying to rewrite history and hide it's own dirty past.
We never performed genocide on teh indians...they live on those reservations because they want to. The South was not systematically destroyed, and punished for over a decade after the CW....and there was no coersion involved in rewriting all those state constitutions. People like Robert E Lee and James Longstreet were traitors, plain and simple, evil men who got what they deserved.

Bull.

Why do we have 'Black Pride' weeks or months...but no 'white pride' day, because that is racist?
Why do we seem to go out of our way to create celebrations of every color, except white?

I know..."Bad Bob...you racist insensitive bastard!  Don't you know you must be punished for what your ancestors did!"  I almost always get some moron who pulls that comment out on me when I get into this topic.

To have a "Black Pride" week, and a "Indian Pride" week, etc, without a "White Pride" week IS racist, bigoted and discriminatory.  Either do all, or none.

Maybe if we stop all this BS we can stop being white/black/brown/red/yellow/green/whatever...and just be "people".





			
				by Lughaidh said:
			
		

> Flying or wearing the Confederate battle flag is not a statement of racism. Folk from the south ... whites and non-whites ... who have ancestors that fought for the South have every right to be proud of the actions of those ancestors without being shouted down. It doesn't take much research to note that *the majority of photographs of racist whites in the KKK are flying the American flag*, not the Confederate. For some reason, whites who express pride in their heritage ... whatever it is ... seem to often be labeled as "racist", while people of color are lauded. Those who label others as "racist" seem to me to often harbor more ill-will than those who don't use labels at all.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 27, 2004)

Strange how people who are champions of the "shades of gray" theory suddenly get all "black and white" on this topic....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 27, 2004)

Regrettably, Mr. Hubbard, you are completely wrong. Words do not mean whatever we wish them to mean, whatever Humpty Dumpty claimed--words have histories, and present culttural values/associations, and the history and the culture of, "white pride," is unremittingly ugly.

A search using the term, "white pride," turned up a charming little group, "Stormfront," as the FIRST result. Here is the response of someone titling themselves, "Aryan Princess," to some other fool titled, "Luftwaffe," who has raised the issue of removing the Confederate flag and other Dixie symbols:

"How dare those people try to steal my heritage from me?!  I'm refusing here and now to let them do that. If I have to I will sign any petition a white southern prints to save our history. The black people they are behind this. They aren't going to get away with it. We didn't surrender to Grant and we sure as heck are not going to surrender to some dread-locked, ghetto black man or woman. This makes my blood boil."

The further discussions are similar. Oh, and incidentally...Lee's Army of Virginia damn sure did surrender to Grant. With Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain formally accepting the surrender and saluting Lee's soldiers, too.

Then there's another little problem (beyond the Stars and Bars being the battle flag of one of the worst Southern racists, beyond the last century-and-a-half of tinhorn creeps like Lester Maddox, beyond its current, ongoing use by groups like the Klan, beyond the fact that ALL of the discussions of that flag's removal immediately elicit terms like, "white pride,")---"white people?" What "white people?"

The idea of there being some separate race of Caucasians--or Aryans, for that matter--is, scientifically, ludicrous. As is the idea of there being some separate, "black," race--unless of course one is that idiot at NYU, with their, "sun people," vs. "ice people," claptrap.

Personally, one also resents political correctness....for example, the pc that says we were right to go to war in Vietnam, just betrayed by pinkos back here at home; the pc that says slavery wasn't so bad; the pc that says Lee and the rest weren't traitors--they took an oath, right? One to, "preserve, protect and defend," right? 

By all means, leave the imagery, while teaching people EXACTLY what its history is, what its current meaning is. Certainly I have no objections, for example, to teaching kids that the Civil War was complex, with one side fighting to maintain an out-of-date feudalism that depended economically, culturally and ideologically upon one of the two ugliest ideas this country ever came up with (the other being genocide)--and the other fighting to develop industrial capitalism, with all that that entailed for a) democracy, and b) the exploitation of the mass of people for the benefit of the few.

Yet somehow,  one never seems to see proponents of the, "teach both sides of the Civil War," theory arguing that capitalism is destructive...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Strange how people who are champions of the "shades of gray" theory suddenly get all "black and white" on this topic....



Not that actual "black and white" thinking has been exhibited here.  That would involve expunging the flag from museums (not advocated here), requiring the girl to not wear it as a dress (not advocated here), and that sort of thing.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 27, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> To have a "Black Pride" week, and a "Indian Pride" week, etc, without a "White Pride" week IS racist, bigoted and discriminatory. Either do all, or none.


 I'd say that it would depend entirely on the motivations for such a week...

 In these cases it is not about putting other races down, but rebuilding a race that has had their culture stripped from them, posessions "liberated" and been forced into a second class existance for generations.

 I agree fully that these things shouldn't be necessary, but they are.  Pride has been stripped from those cultures and they are rebuilding it.  Eventually we will hopefully all be able to be "just people" but unfortunately the wounds that have been inflicted are very deep.  

 Yes, this racism and discrimination is ending, but the wounds still need to be healed.  It is as if a sword was run through them, then one day pulled out and they got told, there you go.  Sword is out now quit your whinning as they stand there bleeding and ready to pass out from loss of blood...

 Just because something has "stopped" does not mean that the damage done is errased.  The damage done by generations before us is still being mended.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

Ack, "White Pride".

Never mind that various white racial groups all have their own traditions and heritage that they celebrate, that dominate and pervade our culture.  Everything from the yearlong holiday melange of European pagan and Xian and Jewish festivals to such exciting parties as Oktoberfest through the exciting Italian and Irish traditions and the continuing celebration of the Southern aristocracy via "debutante" parties and on and on and on...

But if you have a "Black History" month while pointing out that skinheads calling for race war are, in fact, racist, then you must be some kind of politically correct fascist.

For those of you familiar with Orwell, this is called "double-speak".  There's also another term for it, using the initials "B" and "S".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2004)

I am well aware of the number of 'white supremist groups' there are...one encounters quite a few of them when researching certain issues.

  But as I already covered in my articles Revisiting the Past - The Road to War : Causes and Researching the Past - An examination of the concept of Secession, the American Civil War was not simply an issue abour slavery, as many misinformed and a few ignorant individuals continue to believe. 

 We deal with the idea that reparations are somehow owed to decendents of African slaves..while ignoring the facts that not all slaves were African, than no-one currently alive was ever a slave, and that over 140 years have gone by during which there have been ample opportunity for progress.

 But, somehow, I should feel ashamed at what has been a dead institution, and take responsibility for actions that neither I, nor my family participated in.

 In the original post here, a girl who has pride in her southern herritage wanted to make a statement. She is condemned for it. But I wonder, would she have been so condemned if it was an American flag, rather than a Confederate Battle Flag? Or if she had covered it with Christian imagery?
 She would have of course been soundly chastised if she had covered it with pentacles, or ankhs. The irony here is of course that while she and others in the South fight for their right to fly the Stainless Banner, they are more than happy to censor others rights to differeing opinion, or religion.

 The American Civil War happened. Pretending it was simply a race issue, striving to remove from sight the statuary and symbols under which the war was fought, will not remove the truth of that struggle. Not every person who flys the Stainless Banner is a racist, a bigot, or a traitor. Just as not everyone who salutes the Stars and Stripes is white supremist Christian Corporate scum.

 I am a white American. I believe it is time for everyone to stop feeling sorry for themselves, to stop expecting a handout, and get off their lasy asses and build something out of hard work and sweat. Why can an asian, arab or hispanic family move here and within 10 years have a business that supports them, while others who have been here for generations can not? The 'government aid' to minorities and women is there. There are grants and loans that simply because of being 'white' and 'male' that I can not get, ever. That doesn't seem very "equal" to me, a resident of a nation where 'all men are equal'.

 Some will say "The Ku Klux Klan" uses the Confederate Battle Flag as their symbol. True, they do. However they also use several others as well. If we are going to ban 1, then let us please ban the rest of those most hated symbols. They are of course the United States flag and the Christian Cross. Both symbols known world-wide for hatred, intollerence and violence.
 If we are going to blast the images of Lee, Jackson and Longstreet off of Stone Mountain, then let us also blast Washington and Jefferson off Mt. Rushmore as they both participated in that hated institution of slavery...

 You can not have it both ways. Either learn from the past, and move forward positively, or follow the path of the Egyptians and erase your own history.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 27, 2004)

So what does all the debate about being fascist have to do with whether this little girl should have been allowed to wear her dress?  I would tend to doubt that she is a fascist, nor that she fully understands the meaning of the epithet.

Are we, or are we not, permitted the right to express ourselves _as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's right to free enjoyment of their liberties also_?  Much as I would hate to see someone show up at my prom (which I did not attend, by the way -- too establishment for my taste at the time) wearing a politically-charged symbol and thinking she's doing a Scarlett O'Hara turn and the South will rise again, it's her right.  Has not a thing to do with who won or lost the Civil War or who was *right*.  The Stars and Bars has become a bastardization of the original symbol of the Confederate States, utilized now by haters to spread hate.  *That* is my objection.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> So what does all the debate about being fascist have to do with whether this little girl should have been allowed to wear her dress?  I would tend to doubt that she is a fascist, nor that she fully understands the meaning of the epithet.
> 
> Are we, or are we not, permitted the right to express ourselves _as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's right to free enjoyment of their liberties also_?  Much as I would hate to see someone show up at my prom (which I did not attend, by the way -- too establishment for my taste at the time) wearing a politically-charged symbol and thinking she's doing a Scarlett O'Hara turn and the South will rise again, it's her right.  Has not a thing to do with who won or lost the Civil War or who was *right*.  The Stars and Bars has become a bastardization of the original symbol of the Confederate States, utilized now by haters to spread hate.  *That* is my objection.


Well yeah... but supposed she decided to use THIS flag for her dress design instead?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2004)

To some, the "Stars and Bars" is a symbol of hatred, to others a symbol of their heritage.
 To some, the Cross is a symbol of salvation and hope, to others it is a symbol of oppresion and cruelty.

 Symbols mean what you see in them...rarely do they mean otherwise.

 Hitler corrupted the swastika, a symbol with a history thousands of years old, appearing on every continent, in a multitude of faiths. Many groups have abandoned it...while others seek to cleanse it and reclaim it.

 See http://www.luckymojo.com/swastika.html for some interesting history on it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Well yeah... but supposed she decided to use THIS flag for her dress design instead?


 She would have most likely been even more severly censored.  If she tried it in Germany, she would have been arrested and most likely imprisoned.

That symbol was used within our lifetime to murder over 20 million individuals...the 2nd worst barbarity of the 20th century. (The Soviet murders, estimated at over 50 million are I believe #1 on the list, with WW1 being #3)

The important point here is, there are people alive today, who saw the cruilty first hand.  There is no one currently alive now, who saw the Stainless Banner fly during wartime.  

The swastika was a symbol of hope for 3,000+ years.  It took 10 for it to be stained.  It'll probably take a few generations for it to be clean again...long enough for the pain, and the echos to dull. Yes, it currently is directly associated with evil....but, should we now travel the world and chisel it off ancient temple walls, and burn the scrolls that include it?  

Purhaps, we could ask the Taliban for advice on how to destroy what we don't wish to see in this world?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 27, 2004)

Point taken, both of you.

She still has the right to free speech.  If not, then we're no better than the non-democratic governments throughout the world.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2004)

Actually....does she?

About the First Amendment : http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd

Congress didn't tell her she couldn't wear the dress....her school did.  Schools can set dress codes that DO limit the freedom of expression and speech, and do so all the time.  One of our earlier threads here involved a homosexuals denial of the right to wear a gay-pride shirt, while allowing anti-homosexual shirts to be worn to school.

Note, I do agree with you.  I think she did have the right to wear it, despite the fact that I personally find it to be on the tacky side, just as I would any other political/religious "in your face" statement at such an event.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> That symbol was used within our lifetime to murder over 20 million individuals...the 2nd worst barbarity of the 20th century. (The Soviet murders, estimated at over 50 million are I believe #1 on the list, with WW1 being #3)


I don't want to detract from the thread here but this  site has the counts of deaths in WWII here  both military and civilian broken by country. Russia came in first... just... FYI


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 27, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> It is funny how Malcolm X *always* comes up in these discussions. One of the few African-Americans who educated himself, rose out of his environment, confronted white America directly with the same hatred and threats of violence he and his people had faced for *centuries*, and suddenly you can justify any number of terrible racist acts...


Oh I see...

So racism is only ok if its an act of revenge, and then suddenly YOU can justify any number of terrible racist acts. I understand now. 

And, BTW, my point was not that racism was justified, but rather that if you are going to censor someone based on a PERCEPTION of racist symbolism, ALL of that PERCIEVED symbolism should be treated equally.

Of course, as long as people feel that its justified for one side to be racist based on historical treatment of a people, as your post suggests, that will never happen. 

Hey... whos giving me something seeing as how poorly my family was treated coming over here as poor Irish immigrants and being forced to change our names and hide our heritage in order to survive?

Gimme a break... I mean really.

And, BTW... Malcom X was "One of the few African-Americans who educated himself..."  You actualy believe he was one of the "few" african americans who are educated? I see.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 27, 2004)

Roughly in reverse order:

1. If you'll actually READ Malcolm X's autobiography, you will find that he connected the insight he achieved during his hajj--a religious pilgrimage; one suspects the Right has heard of those?--to a) his rejection of the racialist doctrine he'd been taught, b) his rejection of Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. This was a primary motive for his assassination. 

2. The Nazis were around a bit more than ten years. And so was German fascism; three whacks with a copy of, "From Caligari to Hitler."

3. "Cleansing the swastika?" Why? Who's so weak that they need an icon like that anyway? Three whacks with a copy of Hans-Jurgen Syberberg's, "Our Hitler: A Film From Germany," (it's 9 hours long!), which notes that these are the guys, "Who found words like, 'exterminate,' 'blood tribute,' 'take care of,' inferior,' 'final solution,' 'special treatment,' 'scum,' 'root out,', 'inject,' 'slaughter,' 'ruthless,' 'degenerate,' 'shoot down,' 'put against the wall,' 'make short shrift,' 'snuff out,' wipe out,'special force, 'task force,'drastic measures,' 'one head shorter,' 'cleanse,' 'bleeding heart,' 'liquidate,' 'national community,' 'corrupt,' blood banner.'" Scrub THAT off the swastika...me, "I heil pfft/and heil pfft/Right in der Fuhrer's face."

4. "Stainless Banner," my left lower cheek. You want to be proud of a national image? Fine. Try the St. Gaudens memorial in Boston Commons. Contemplate Ernie Pyle, Rodger Young, Rosa Parks. 

5. One is dying to hear about the federal laws and unfair advantages that Made Life So Easy for All Them Immigrants. Specifically. With citations, examples, and footnotes. Unlikely--much easier to repeat the old lies; why them Asians! them Hispanics! them Germans, them Italians! them Irish! The Mexicans are Catholic and lazy and dumb and on welfare! it's unfair!! The Asians aren't Christians and they work extra hard and they're smart and they make money! It's unfair!! One would think that people would have caught on by now, at least. 

6. Me too am white guy--though one finds terms such as, "white American,' both offensive and divisive, asserting as they do the attempt to preserve one's cultural identity against the idea of being American. Hey, guess what? The perks of this condition are pretty good, and they have been for my whole life. One pretty much has no objection to other folks getting a fair break once in a while. One also wishes that the other "white men," would figure out who their real beef is with...guess what? it's with rich white guys!

7. So is it OK by everybody if we teach kids that the Southern Cause set a crowd of warmongering, feudalist, slave-owning bastards against a crowd of Northern, modernist industrial capitalists--and the glorious Civil War was perfectly understandable from Karl Marx's viewpoint? Sounds good to me.

7. "There is no document of civilizations that is not, at the same time, also a document of barbarism."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 27, 2004)

P.S. One looked up the, "Stainless banner," people. Many seem to be harmless sales sites for Confederate memorabilia. However, the first three sites listed under the search terms also featured a great deal of genuinely bizarre interpretations of American history....including this little gem, from a Mississippi state senator's 1997 speech demanding the restoration of the Confederate Flag to the capitol:

"Our ancestors in the old South were fundamentally Christians which means they believe that the Bible, Old and New Testament, were the opinions of Almighty God, Who does not change and not the opinions of man. On the other hand, the abolitionists from up North were Humanists. They believed that God changed with the times and that the Bible was merely the opinions of man and not necessarily the opinions of God. I shall read to you a little of what God says in the Bible concerning slavery and thus what our ancestors in the Old South believed. 

In the Old Testament, Leviticus, 25; 44-46, God says, "As for your male and female slaves whom you have acquired  you may acquire male and female slaves from the Pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have begotten in your land; they also may become your possessions. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves." 

In the New Testament, I Timothy, 6:1-5, God says; "Let all who are under the yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine may not be spoken against. And let thosewho have believers as their masters be not disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but let them serve them all the more because those who partake of the benefits are believers are beloved. Teach and preach these principles". 

People who are bitter and hateful about slavery are obviously hatful and bitter against God and His Word, because they reject what God says and embrace what mere humans say about slavery. This humanistic thinking is what the abolitionists embraced while Southerners and most Northerners embrace what God said in the Bible. These humanists' argument is not with me or the South or the United States but rather their argument is with God. They had made themselves out to be greater than God for they add to God's Word when they call something evil that God obviously allows. Is this what the abolitionists did? Teaching the doctrines of man as if they were the doctrines of God. The second lie is; that slaves were mistreated in the Old South. Again, this is not true. Colossians 4;1, Jesus said; "Masters, grant to your servants justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven." To say that slaves were mistreated in the Old South is to say that the most Christian group of people in the entire world, the Bible Belt, mistreated their servants and violated the commandments of Jesus their Lord. Anyone who says this is an accuser of the brethren of Jesus Christ, not a very good position to take. We in the South are offended by such accusations. 

Just the opposite is true. In a U.S. Government PWA survey of former slaves, taken years after the war, 70% of former slaves had only good experiences to report about life as a slave and about the Old South. In the Old South there were numerous laws that protected slaves from abuse just like there are laws to protect wives and children from abuse, today. But just because a few men abuse their wives or children does not make marriage or having children a cruel, hateful endeavor. The same is true for slavery. Modern studies of slavery in the Old South proved that in food, shelter, clothing and medical care, Southern slaves were significantly better off than the free white factory workers in the North. The instance of abuse, rape, broken homes and murder are a hundred times greater, today, in the housing projects than they ever were on the slave plantations in the Old South. The truth is, that nowhere on the face of the earth, in all of time, were servants better treated or better loved than those were in the old South by white, black, Hispanic and Indian slave owners..."

Let's review:

The writer specifically ties the Confederacy and its representative symbol, the flag he wishes to restore to the State capitol, to a) the institution of slavery; b) the Will of God. To wit:

"People who are bitter and hateful about slavery are obviously hatful and bitter against God and His Word, because they reject what God says and embrace what mere humans say about slavery. This humanistic thinking is what the abolitionists embraced while Southerners and most Northerners embrace what God said in the Bible. These humanists' argument is not with me or the South or the United States but rather their argument is with God. They had made themselves out to be greater than God for they add to God's Word when they call something evil that God obviously allows."

There isn't enough Oxydol and Zout on the planet for these purposes. Perhaps bleach--it's a whitener.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2004)

1: Malcolms history has been pretty well documented.  I believe MLK is a better role model.

2: Yes, the German nazi party was around longer..but wasn't any more effective than the average US 3rd party, until Hitler grew his powerbase, and took over the government.

3: "Who's so weak that they need an icon like that anyway?" Maybe if you would take the time to understand the 3,000+ years of prior meaning, and what it means today in some parts of the world you would realize how uneducated that statement appears.

4: Again, take some time and research the meanings placed behind the various flags of the Confederate States before commenting in such an uneducated manner.

5: You appear to have missed my point.

6: My 'beef' is with those who want it both ways.

7: You continue to miss my points.  ReRead my articles, and then look up the reference materials indicated in there.  My points were backed with 3rd party intel...not popular disinformation.

7B - ...ok..... ??


----------



## Tgace (Dec 27, 2004)

We'll as most of the southern soldiers fighting were dirt poor farmers who owned no slaves, I dont think that argument is entirely accurate...my good friend who recently moved to North Carolina tells me that the Civil War isnt called such there..they call it "The War of Northern Aggression". Ive read that Slavery was on the way out during the war anyway, for economic reasons more than moral granted. 

I read an interesting book called "Confederates in the Attic" that addresses the issue of the Southerners and the continuation of this Civil War stuff, interesting read.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 27, 2004)

1. Nice duck-out on the point about Malcolm X rethinking the racism he was raised on by Elijah Muhammad, and seeing through the lies of his society. But then, it'd be hard to find examples of something comparable from the white racists who helped start the Civil War, maintained the institution of slavery as long as they could, invented the Jim Crow laws, maintained the institution of slavery as long as they could, stood in the doors of every school-room and lunch-counter in the South, and are now pushing folks towards a revisionist history almost as repulsive as the revamping of Hitler.

2. The generals and politicans of the South sure as hell weren't dirt farmers, were they? Saintly Robert E. Lee--hardscrabble kinda guy, eh? No wonder they got their asses kicked by a drunken, failed shop-owner and a college teacher of rhetoric and revealed religion and a self-taught country boy lawyer, among others...

3. If we're a-gonna throw around the accusation of ignorance, here's one fer ya: a) the Sanskrit "swastika," went the other way round; b) these arguments about the North and the South are rehashes of claims I heard again and again as a child, and which were brought up by Bruce Catton in the 1950s, and Commager a generation before that. It's a rehash of the same old same old, "Glory of the Confederacy," stuff that had folks in Maryland and Virgina joking, "Save your Dixie cups, the South shall rise again," forty-fifty years ago.

4. Oh. The Stainless Banner sites you meant did not a) hawk flags, b) contain statements/links exactly like the one cited. Which ones were those, again?

5. Oh, one got your point. Here it is: "I am a white American. I believe it is time for everyone to stop feeling sorry for themselves, to stop expecting a handout, and get off their lasy asses and build something out of hard work and sweat. Why can an asian, arab or hispanic family move here and within 10 years have a business that supports them, while others who have been here for generations can not?"

6. Who, precisely, are you talking about? Please provide references which are NOT to Al Sharpton. Or please read Cornel West, "Race Matters."  It's been out since, oh, 1997.

7. Your articles are attempts at revisionist history, in my professional opinion. One cannot agree with the theses, the methodology, or the conclusions. And one can no more scrub the swastika clean, or get the blood of generations of black people off the "Stainless Banner," than one can dismiss the Nazi connections of Martin Heidegger and Paul de Man, both direct influences upon the work of Jacques Derrida--whose deconstructions allow one to decipher these conversations. Again, one recommends seeing "Our Hitler," which beautifully discusses the extent to which the Nazis have permanently ruined lovely melody of Joseph Haydn's that they adapted to "Deustchland, Deutschland Uber Alles."

7b. If the Stainless Banner has nothing to do with racism, and slavery was in no way integral to the Confederacy, please explain precisely why, in 1997, a State legislator is giving speeches asserting that the Stainless Banner represents a slavery that was willed by God. 

8. One has known that the Civil War was not simply a battle of the saintly North vs. the evil South for approximately...oh, thirty years or so. Among other things, one had the cynicism of the Emancipation Proclamation explained by both Bruce Catton and high school history teachers by oh, 1967.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2004)

1: My understanding of Malcolm X is admitedly, limited.  The little I do know, is that much of what he preached has been used by black supremists.  If he later changed his message, I'm not aware of it.  Again though, you continually omit any other cause for the ACW other than slavery. 

2: If you were aware of the records of those who led the Confederate military, you would know that they were some of the highest ranked and experienced of the old Republic army.  Lee had been offered command of the Union army by Lincoln himself, and Jackson was held in similar respect. These individuals whose honor you continue to defame were not the evildoers you, and so many others make them out to be.  The North won the war on sheer numbers.  More men, more resources, more money, and the fact that the great majority of the war was fought in the South, leaving the Norths intact.

3: There are a number of variations on the design of the swastika, some sharp, some soft, some spiral, some reversed.  At one time in history it was also used as a Christian symbol. 

4: Considering the popularity of the ACW, I don't doubt there are a ton of sites that sell collectibles....in fact, I host at least 2 ACW sites.
Here is some history on the flags of the Confederacy. 
http://dixieresearch.com/confederate_flags.htm
and another: http://www.scv674.org/csaflags.htm 

5: My point is, why can folks move here and do well, while others who have been here seem to make excuses, and resent those who succeed?  It's not just 'black', but it happened every generation when immigrants came here, did well despite getting crap jobs (The Irish in the 1800's comes to mind).

6: Those individuals who want to limit acceptable to their own narrow viewpoint, and censor all others.  The school that bans 'gay pride', but allows gay bashing, the community that insists on a Christian manger, but denies a Pagan Yule celebration, etc.  Sharpton hasn't been credible IMHO since the incident with Brawley? Bradley? way back when.

7: Robert, you are accusing me? of revisionist history?  Please. 
I cited documented sources, such as the words of Lincoln himself....not some made for TV special.  The "Stainless Banner" was in effect less than 2 years. 1863-1865.  Hardly enough time for "Generations".  More "Black Blood" was spilled over the US flag before, during and after the ACW.  Remember, the North won....since you insist it was all about race, it's nice that in your world, that ended it all, and blacks in the North were welcomed and wanted.  The sad reality is that after the 'ReUnionifcation', more limits were placed on racial integration than prior.  

7B - The "Stainless Banner", as well as the "Stars and Bars" and the "Bonnie Blue Flag" were national flags of a legal nation, that nation being the Confederate States of America. As to why a Senator would say things...well, I don't know.  I was not there, and am not privy to his thoughts.  But, his words must be true, for we do know that no one elected to that high office could possibly ever be mistaken, or misunderstood, right?  Please explain to me if Christianity isn't racist, why thousands upon thousands of KuKluxKlan members use both it's symbols and scripture as proof of their cause?  If the US Flag isn't a hate symbol, why these groups are just as likely to salute it and wave it, as any Confederate symbology?

8: Yet you continue to ignore those facts which dispute your own narrow, and limited view.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2004)

> Malcolm X  source
> (May 19, 1925  February 21, 1965)
> Named Malcolm Little by his parents, Malcolm X was born on May 19, 1925 in Omaha, Nebraska. Malcolms father, Earl Little was an outspoken supporter of the Black Nationalist, Marcus Garvey. As a result, he received numerous death threats and was forced to move his family several times. While the family was in Lansing, Michigan their home was burned down. Two years later Malcolms father died after he was run over by a streetcar. It was rumored that he was murdered by a white supremacist group. Malcolms mother had an emotional breakdown, and was unable to care for Malcolm and his siblings. The children were split up and sent to foster homes.
> By the time that Malcolm was a teenager, he had dropped out of high school. At first he worked odd jobs in Boston, Massachusetts, but he soon moved to Harlem, New York where he became involved in criminal activity.
> ...


Seems to me from this (brief) biography he was a man who at first hated whites and then realized later from other countries that blacks and whites and any other race can co-exist together.  Unfortunately he was killed before he could spread his (changed) message.


> 8: Yet you continue to ignore those facts which dispute your own narrow, and limited view.


Bob, respectfully refrain from this type of statement(s) as they can be construde as a personal attack.  :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2004)

Thank you for the Bio...definately educational.

As to Robert, I'll try to be more tolerant of his unique way of debating in the future.
:asian:


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 28, 2004)

Good information on Malcom X, and failry accurate from what I know about him.

 Unfortunate that most of the people I know of (we will exclude their race) who seem to want to follow the "teachings" of Mr. X, want to follow his violent and racist ones. 

  Is this a mistaken notion?  maybe... 

  maybe about as mistaken as the notion that the confederate flag = racism.

  But hey... like I said... equal treatment for symbols PERCEIVED as racist folks...

  You know... as a biker and a boater, I see a lot of people who fly pirate flags... I think that symbolizes theft and rape... 

  Lets rally against it!


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 28, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So racism is only ok if its an act of revenge, and then suddenly YOU can justify any number of terrible racist acts. I understand now.



Racism is never okay, but thanks for putting words into my mouth.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Of course, as long as people feel that its justified for one side to be racist based on historical treatment of a people, as your post suggests, that will never happen.



My quote actually suggests that Malcolm X's reaction was *understandable*, not justified.  Perhaps if you understood history, you'd recall that during that time, people were turning dogs and firehoses on his people, firebombing their churches, lynchings were still common -- this does not justify racism, but it makes it understandable, yes?  The fact that even with these pressures, he eventually rose above that hatred is all the more laudable.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> And, BTW... Malcom X was "One of the few African-Americans who educated himself..."  You actualy believe he was one of the "few" african americans who are educated? I see.



Wow, you must either have been seriously offended, or simply looking for an argument, to read that into my statement.  It is clear, however, that Malcolm X went out of his way in prison to reach a level of education that was unusual for a convicted African-American dropout felon of his era, and then rose to a level of political prominence extremely unusual for an African-American of his time (hence his mention in this conversation).  For you to dispute this would be simply silly.  

If you're suggesting that I implied anything further about the educational level of African-Americans, I recommend that you grow up.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 28, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> We'll as most of the southern soldiers fighting were dirt poor farmers who owned no slaves, I dont think that argument is entirely accurate



It's absolutely true that most Southern soldiers were poor dirt farmers, just as most Northern soldiers were poor farmers and workers as well.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> ...my good friend who recently moved to North Carolina tells me that the Civil War isnt called such there..they call it "The War of Northern Aggression".



Yep, because it's a more pleasant way to spin it.  But primarily because they felt they had an honest right to secede from the Union, and that there was no aspect of "Civil War"... that the CSA had formed a distinct nation, that was aggressively invaded and conquered by the USA.  All negative aspects of the war aside, it's difficult to argue that states have no right to secede.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Ive read that Slavery was on the way out during the war anyway, for economic reasons more than moral granted.



The South was in no position to convert rapidly away from slavery; the capital investments alone would have been astronomical.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 28, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> 1If he later changed his message, I'm not aware of it.  Again though, you continually omit any other cause for the ACW other than slavery.



I think you've already seen more info on this, but Malcolm X did change his message later, and was assassinated (most likely by the Nation of Islam) for having done so.  And to be fair, Robert's focus on causes for the ACW are on slavery, but he has conceded repeatedly (with a focus on the Marxist class conflict) that neither the North or South were clean, white, pure "good guys" in origins of the conflict.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The North won the war on sheer numbers.  More men, more resources, more money, and the fact that the great majority of the war was fought in the South, leaving the Norths intact.



Given Robert's history reading Catton and others, I'm sure he's familiar with the record of the Southern generals.  

Keep in mind, Bob, that those sheer numbers wielded by the North were insufficient to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia until Grant took over.  Keep in mind as well that Grant continually outmaneuvered and defeated opponent after opponent in the western theater until taking command of the Army of the Potomac.

Grant then recognized that Lee would never allow his Army, which was at that stage badly outnumbered and suffering miserably from blockade, to be outmaneuvered in the field, so Grant deliberately chose to use the North's advantage in numbers (which had never been properly leveraged before) and engaged in a strategy of attrition by which he forced the South to surrender.    Fighting the battle you can win, rather than the one your opponent can win, has been called good generalship since the days of Sun Tzu at the very least.  To not credit Grant for this is to deny *Grant* the honor he deserves.  It also denies a very American tradition of warfighting that extends into the Second World War (where people also like to talk about how the great German generals would never had lost except for the Allied advantages in materiel...)



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> My point is, why can folks move here and do well, while others who have been here seem to make excuses, and resent those who succeed?  It's not just 'black', but it happened every generation when immigrants came here, did well despite getting crap jobs (The Irish in the 1800's comes to mind).



I recommend the book "Race Matters" for some insight into this.  Even if you don't agree with it, it's an important read.

To be fair, I also don't think Robert has ever disputed that:

-- The North is a horribly racist place as well
-- Lots of horrible things happened to the South during and after the war
-- Lots of people base their racist beliefs in Christianity



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Sharpton hasn't been credible IMHO since the incident with Brawley? Bradley? way back when.



The Tawana Brawley thing was a farce, but you should pay attention to Al Sharpton of late.  He's one of the few people associated with the Democratic Party of late who will actually speak the truth about the state of affairs in America today... I actually think you'd like him.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 28, 2004)

Personally, I have no real "side" on this issue. However, i did dig up this interesting bit on the "Southern" viewpoint.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/apologia.htm



> The material here presented is meant to illuminate certain aspects of American history from the Civil War era, but it is also meant to establish arguments and to answer other arguments, either among professional historians or average Americans.
> 
> Some of the chapters will give due appreciation of the military effort put forth by the South -- both in comparison to the North and in its own right -- establish the legitimacy of the South's bid for independence, and encourage respect for the will to fight shown by the people of the Southern states. Others will re-emphasize that racism and slavery were, and remain, national experiences. Still others will give economics and politics their proper roles as causes of the American Civil War.
> 
> ...


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 28, 2004)

Interesting piece of work that. 
If I may inject a bit of personal (theological) view to it all. The United States was conceived and drawn by men guided by a power greater than themselves. It's been oft said that the documents which created this country (The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, etc.) are inspired documents. 
For the southern states to succeed from their northern counterparts would've been contrary to the plan/will of God as drawn out in those aforementioned documents. It is clear (to me) that He intended this nation to be ONE nation under God... indivisible with liberty and justice for all. 
Thanks to men like Abraham Lincoln and others the liberty came with the emancipation of the slaves, making it illegal all across the country. It took time but it held and still holds. 
Justice for all. This took time and is still taking time but it's growing pains are past with the success of the Civil Rights Movement. There is still resistance to it but it's on an individual level not collective. 
Our great nation is 229 years old. Relatively still young. But we've definitely come a long way with a long way to go. For us to be ONE nation we must (as a whole) become one mind in realizing God's plan for this nation, with individuality being on the individual basis, i.e. Freedom of Speech, Religion and so forth. 
But one mind that this is a "free country." That this is a place where a person can realize their dreams and have dreams to realize without the fear of oppression and supression. 
Our past is our past, shameful in some places but glorious in many others. By letting go of (but not forgetting) the past we can cling better to the future. The past is there for us to learn from. To learn from the mistakes and the successes. United we are stronger.  Our strength can and should be used to help others achieve the freedoms that we often times take for granted. 
Remembering the past is necessary, glorifying it is not. 

(These opinions are of course my own. ) :asian:


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 28, 2004)

_*Moderator Note*._ 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Satt (Dec 28, 2004)

I still think it's hot, and I would have taken her to my prom. artyon:


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 28, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Racism is never okay, but thanks for putting words into my mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  THANK YOU FOR PLAYING.

  You see how EASY it is to take somthing TOTALY out of context based on erronius preconcieved notions?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 28, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> THANK YOU FOR PLAYING.
> 
> You see how EASY it is to take somthing TOTALY out of context based on erronius preconcieved notions?



Particularly once it's online


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 28, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> * Teen Sues Over Confederate Flag Prom Dress *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was she appropriately covered for a Formal School function?

Her taste in fashion may be questionable but not worth this much hype.  How many trucks,cars, tshirts,hats, binders/notebooks in her school are covered with the Confederate flag on a daily basis and students are not being punished?  As an authority, if you let something slide on a daily basis and then suddenly want to make a stand....you are going to look stupid - even if it is a point worth making.

I would be more concerned with the 'questionable' fashion of the attendees that decided that dressing like a Pop Star/porn star or wearing skater shorts to a formal function is appropriate than this dress.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 28, 2004)

Beyond the fact that slavery--while not the immediate and precipitating cause of the War--was assuredly one of its two or three most-vital causes (folks are forgetting that "slavery," at the time, covered not only the present condition of black people in the South, but the extension of the institution of slavery elsewhere), there're these statements from the VP of the Confederacy and one of its leading lights, John C. Calhoun:

Home » * Writings » * 
Defending the Cause of Human Freedom
By Harry V. Jaffa

Posted April 15, 1994

The Spring 1994 Intercollegiate Review featured a section entitled "Not In Memoriam, But in Affirmation: M.E. Bradford." I welcome this, or any tribute, to my departed friend. As many readers of Intercollegiate Review know, my eulogy of Bradford was published in National Review, and was well received by his Confederate friends as well as by others who, like myself, are devoted to the cause of the Union.

Mel and I debated the character of Abraham Lincoln, and the issues of the Civil War generally. Although we were on opposite sides, our conviction that the Civil War was the central event in American  and possibly in world  history, was a bond between us. Neither of us ever made the smallest concession to the other in the course of argument, and Mel would consider it a false sentimentality were I to do so now....

Lincoln, Bradford persuasively demonstrated, was more than simply wrong headed; he was a "dishonest" and "duplicitous" "pseudo-Puritan," and a disingenuous "opportunist" guilty of "calculated posturing," "historical distortions," and "high crimes"; he was indeed "the American Caesar of his age." "It is at our peril," cautioned Bradford, "that we continue to reverence his name...."

Bradford's thesis that Lincoln waged a "Cromwellian" war of aggression against the South is without any foundation. He and I debated this a number of times, and he would never acknowledge the following facts. The "real" secession of the South from the Union came at the Democratic convention in Charleston, in April 1860. The seven states of the deep South walked out, when the majority  who came to nominate Stephen A. Douglas  refused to accept a plank in the party platform calling for a federal guarantee of slave property in every United States Territory.

Douglas, who had defended the right of slave owners to migrate to the Territories  and who had in 1854 legislated the repeal of the Missouri Compromise restriction upon such migration  insisted that it was up to the settlers in the territories to decide for themselves what their "domestic institutions" would be. He himself, Douglas had said, didn't care whether slavery "was voted up or voted down." He believed only in the "sacred right" of the people to decide all such questions for themselves...

It cannot be too often repeated that the South seceded because of its demand for a federal guarantee of slavery in every United States Territory, then or thereafter existing. This demand was rejected by Douglas no less than by Lincoln. In fact, no one who endorsed it could have been elected dog-catcher in any free state.

Contrary to a common mistaken opinion, this demand of the South, made in the name of states' rights, represented a demand for an unprecedented extension of federal power. It meant that federal troops, if necessary, would be sent to any Territory to protect a slaveholder's property, in the same way that President Pierce sent federal troops to Boston to recover a runaway slave in 1854. Or in much the same way that President Eisenhower would one day send federal troops to Little Rock to enforce the desegregation order of a federal court. This meant using federal police power to enforce slavery on a community that did not want it.

So much for the vaunted claim that the South was defending self-government against the tyranny of federal centralism. The South did not therefore secede in 1860 and 1861 in order to defend self-rule within their own boundaries. That was never threatened. They seceded in order to be able to spread slavery beyond the boundaries of the slave states themselves into any American territory, present or future....

McClellan mentions Alexander Hamilton Stephens' Constitutional View of the War Between the States, which was and remains probably the best defense of the Confederate cause. It is all about states' rights, and the defense of the minority against the tyranny of the numerical majority, although the "silent minority," the four million slaves, are never counted. It is substantially the book that Calhoun would have written had he been alive to do so. Stephens, who was Vice President of the Confederacy, had also been widely known  North and South  as one of the intellectual luminaries of his time.

On March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Georgia, Stephens gave an address that has come down to us as the "cornerstone" speech. It is remarkable, not least because of how markedly it differs from Constitutional View, written after the war. It was delivered after Lincoln's inauguration, and before Fort Sumter, during that "deadly hiatus" when it was possible to think the Confederacy was destined for a peaceful and permanent future.

What then, according to its learned and scholarly Vice President, was the essential and fundamental distinction between the "old" Constitution of 1787, and the new Confederate Constitution? Since Bradford was tireless in abusing Lincoln for clothing his language in biblical phrases, it is noteworthy that the cornerstone speech is built upon a theme from Psalms 118:22.

The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.

This verse is repeated at least three times in the New Testament, once by Jesus himself. In every case, it is Jesus who is the "cornerstone." Here are some leading excerpts:

"The new [i.e. Confederate] Constitution has put to rest forever all agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution  African slavery as it exists among usthe proper status of the negro in our forms of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. [Italics in the original.]  

Stephens continued.

"The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantee thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day."

"Those ideas [viz., of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the Constitution] however were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a government built upon it; when the 'storm came and the wind blew, it fell.'"

We pause to note that the parable of the house built upon sand comes from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:28. Lincoln was never more "biblical" in his rhetoric than Stephens. According to Stephens, the doctrine of human equality was the sandy foundation upon which the "old" Constitution was built. What then is the cornerstone of a house, or constitution, that can last?

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not the equal to the white man; that slavery  subordination to the superior race  is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world, based upon this great physical and moral truth..."

Hence slavery is to true government what the Gospel is to true religion! However, it is not religion, but science, upon which Stephens relies.

"This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science...It was so with the principles of Galileo  it was so with Adam Smith...it was so with Harvey and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now they are universally acknowledged.

May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon principles of strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. The negro, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

We note that Stephens, in passing, mentions that it may also be "by the curse against Canaan," that the Negro is destined to servitude. While an alleged progress in science is the main basis for Stephens' convictions with respect to Negro slavery, it was not "reason" but "revelation" that led Jefferson Davis to the same conclusion.

I commend as a comprehensive account of {Jefferson} Davis' convictions concerning slavery, his speech before the Democratic state Convention, at Jackson, Mississippi, July 6, 1859. It is fascinating, but too long for extended quotation here. Suffice it that it is in the story of Noah and his sons (Genesis 9:20-27) that Davis finds complete and sufficient justification of Negro slavery. Never did Lincoln draw on the Bible for support of any position of his own as Davis does. It is important here that we recall precisely the story Davis draws upon.

'Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japeth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.

When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slave shall he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. God enlarge Japeth and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave..."

Jefferson Davis is categorical in pronouncing four million Americans, and all their descendants for all future time, to be "the degenerate sons of Ham," fit only to be slaves...

John C. Calhoun was the philosopher-king of the old South, the spiritual mentor of Stephens, Davis, and most of the political leaders of the Confederacy. Bradford and McClellan (following Willmoore Kendall) are obsessed with the utterly false notion that Lincoln was somehow responsible for the permissive egalitarianism of the contemporary welfare state. But equality as such was no less important to Calhoun than to Lincoln. It was just a different kind of equality. Consider:

'I am a Southern man and a slaveholder  a kind and merciful one, I trust  and none the worse for being a slaveholder. I say, for one, I would rather meet any extremity upon earth than give up one inch of our equalityone inch of what belongs to us as members of this republic! What! Acknowledged inferiority! The surrender of life is nothing to sinking down into acknowledged inferiority!' (In the Senate, February 19, 1847.)

It never occurs to Calhoun that black human beings might also resent, with equalor much greater  reason, "acknowledged inferiority." That is because he does not think of them as human. Calhoun simply assumes that blacks have neither the reason nor the passions that are characteristically human. They are chattels, that is, cattle, for all intents and purposes. Once again, Calhoun:

'With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and the poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals, if honest and industrious; and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them.' (In the Senate, August 12, 1849.)

We see here the essence of the Southern understanding of equality, why it was so highly prized, and why so resolutely defended. Every white man can be proud of himself  can consider himself an aristocrat  not because of his virtues or accomplishments, but simply because he is not black! By rejecting the principle that all men are created equal, by keeping "the degenerate sons of Ham" under foot (and under the lash), one need never do anything to become important, like members of the royal family. It is not without reason that Lincoln compared slavery to the divine right of kings! Calhoun demanded equality no less than Lincoln. But his equality required a "cornerstone" of slavery."

The above excerpts can be found through the Claremont Scholars' website. I've excerpted some of his commentary, to focus upon the comments of the President and VP of the South, together with John C. Calhoun.

Lincoln may have screwed up; Lincoln may have planned to ship freed slaves back to Africa. Lincoln also wrote this: 

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."---Abraham Lincoln


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 28, 2004)

And while we're on the topic of the saintly South, its freedom from the corruption and profiteering of the North, and saintly Jefferson Davis:

American History
Richmond Bread Riot 

"The women who marched through the streets of Richmond, Virginia, in April 1863 demanded food. Facing them, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was equally adamant: If the protesters did not disperse, they would be shot. 

By Alan Pell Crawford for American History Magazine 

On the pleasant spring morning of April 2, 1863, a pretty young woman sat down on a bench at Capitol Square in Richmond, Virginia. Another woman on the bench later recalled that the girl had delicate features and large eyes and wore a clean, skillfully stitched calico gown that indicated she might have been a dressmakers apprentice. When the girl reached up to remove her sunbonnet, her sleeve slipped, revealing the mere skeleton of an arm. 

As the two women sat together, several hundred people gathered on the grounds of the Confederate Capitol. The older woman, the wife of a former U.S. congressman who was then serving in the Confederate Army, wondered what was happening. Is there some celebration? she asked. 

There is, the girl said with great dignity. We celebrate our right to live. We are starving. As soon as enough of us get together, we are going to the bakeries and each of us will take a loaf of bread. That is little enough for the government to give us after it has taken all our men. 

The girl then made her way to the Capitol, where she disappeared into the crowd and from history. Within minutes, the crowd she had joined became a mob and moved noisily down Ninth Street toward the shops on Main Street. No one is sure of everything that happened during the next few hours, but the so-called Bread Riot resulted in dozens of arrests and numerous convictions, further demoralizing an already suffering city....
*
That conditions had become so dire in the Confederate capital was somewhat ironic. Ever since agricultural Virginia had been a state, and for many years before that, Richmond had been its commercial, if not industrial, center. Many Richmonders were lawyers, merchants, and tradesmen who tended to be Federalists and then Whigs, and therefore Unionists. Governor John Letcher, who took office in 1860, was a Unionist. Richmonders even organized a failed February 1861 peace conference at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., and Virginia did not leave the Union until April 17, 1861, four months after South Carolina seceded and two days after President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the insurrection in the Southern states. 

When General Robert E. Lee came to the city to accept command of the states forces a week after Virginia joined the Confederacy, recruits from all over the South followed. With them, as Virginius Dabney wrote in Richmond: The Story of a City, came adventurers, speculators, gamblers, prostitutes and every other type of person who gravitates to the center of activity in wartime. After the engagement at First Manassas in July 1861, when Southern troops drove Union General Irvin McDowells Yankees back to Washington, Richmonds population38,000 before the wardoubled, then tripled. It would reach 128,000 in 1864. Food that otherwise would be feeding the citys residents was by then being commandeered by the military. Almost constant warfare on Virginias once-fertile farmland soon disrupted agricultural production. Before long, the military took over the railroads, further interrupting the transport of goods. 

The momentum of early Southern victories at Manassas and at Balls Bluff could not be sustained. In the late spring of 1862, Federal forces took Yorktown and Williamsburg in the Peninsular Campaign and then advanced to the outskirts of Richmond. There, spirits were sinkingand prices were rising. As soldiers on leave took advantage of the availability of alcohol and prostitutes, clogging the streets and dining in the gambling hells that cropped up near Capitol Square, the nature of the once-genteel city changed. Brawls had to be broken up, and in March, the Confederate Congress imposed martial law on Richmond and for an area 10 miles around the city. The new laws suspended habeas corpus, required passports for anyone leaving town, banned liquor sales without a physicians prescription, and ordered the closing of saloons and distilleries, although many continued to operate. The value of Confederate money declined, and corruption ran rampant. 

In June 1862, after the Battle of Seven Pines, nearly 5,000 wounded soldiers came into Richmond, further straining the citys meager resources. A month later Lees Army of Northern Virginia had driven the Federals away from Richmond and back to Washington, and at least 10,000 more bloodied men, plus thousands of Federal prisoners, poured into the city. And with them came still more prostitutes, who took over an entire block near Capitol Square, promenading up and down the shady walks, Mayor Joseph Mayo complained, jostling respectable ladies in the gutter. Venereal disease swept through the city. An outbreak of smallpox, from late 1862 to February 1863, contributed to anxieties against which even the staunchest of residents struggled. 

We are in a half-starving condition, John B. Jones, a clerk in the Confederate War Department, wrote in his diary. I lost twenty pounds and my wife and children are emaciated to some extent. Still I hear no murmuring. Rats ran amok. Epicures sometimes manage to entrap them and secure a nice broil for supper, declaring that their flesh was superior to squirrel meat, reported Phoebe Yates Pember, a diarist who was the chief matron at one of the citys hospitals. 

Food speculators, meanwhile, hoarded vast stores of flour, sugar, bacon, and salt, withholding them from market while prices soared. These speculators, President Jefferson Davis declared, were worse enemies of the Confederacy than if found in arms among the invading forces. Governor Letcher said such profiteering embraces to a greater or less extent all interestsagricultural, mercantile and professional. Military officials were also said to be hoarding food or, viewed in the most favorable light, making a botch of their commissary duties."

Hm. Seems kinda unpleasant for white folks, too.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 28, 2004)

It seems pointless to argue military strategy. However, a study of Grant's campaigns in the West, Sherman's fighting through Georgia, and Chamberlain's small-unit tactics might prove instructive in dispelling the myth that the South always outgeneraled.

(Additionally, it remains disturbing to note that these claims about Southern generalship and superiority for the individual soldier have their parallels in a fair amount of the military buff talk about the Third Reich--despite their getting whupped at Kursk, at El Alamein, and in the Battle of the Bulge by the Rooskies, the brits, and the Yanks.)

It also seems odd to have to argue with folks who are insisting that some of us don't know things we've known for thirty years or so....here! I'll say it!!! John Brown was absolutely right about slavery, but a complete nutcase!!!

However, we can agree that: a) Marx's points about the superiority of capitalism to feudalism, and the extent to which wage-slavery vs. slavery is a bad way to set up one's options; b) that silly girl has every right to wear whatever imagery she likes; c) it's doubtful she came up with this all on her very own. 

We can also agree that whitewashing the past is bad. It is offensive to pretend that slavery was altogether a white institution--though one point to raise is that slavery became something different, something new and uglier than ever in the South--that the North was innocent, that there is no Northern racism. 

It is equally offensive to pretend that a) the South simply got pushed into the War by the greedy North, b) the South was not fundamentally racist in an old-fashioned sense, and fought its war in large part to defend slavery, c) the Southern government was squeaky clean, d) the myth of the South was not used to justify the founding of the Klan, the Jim Crow laws, the proliferation of lynching between 1890 and 1920, the imposition of segregation, the refusal to allow civil rights for black people, today's attempt to roll back the clock.

Sorry, Mr. Hubbard. But in these arguments you're making appears legitimation for not only a fundamental rejection of democracy and its history, but for horror.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2004)

*"It is equally offensive to pretend that a) the South simply got pushed into the War by the greedy North,"
*
  I never said that.
*"b) the South was not fundamentally racist in an old-fashioned sense, and fought its war in large part to defend slavery,"*

  I never said that either.

*"c) the Southern government was squeaky clean, "*

  I certainly never said that.

*"d) the myth of the South was not used to justify the founding of the Klan, the Jim Crow laws, the proliferation of lynching between 1890 and 1920, the imposition of segregation, the refusal to allow civil rights for black people, today's attempt to roll back the clock."*

  The Klan was founded in part to combat the stripping away of the rights of those who fought against the Union, and the awarding of those rights, and the resultant "vote Republican, or else" push to the former slaves.  It was also a vehicle for racism and violence, 2 facts I have never disputed. Given the 'terms' of the peace imposed by military force, and military occupation of the conquered South, the targeting of the black population as a convenient scapegoat was inevitable, much as the Jews were scapegoated by the Germans after WWI.  I do not attempt to "Roll back the Clock", however I do see a too often repeated pattern, one I expect to see reoccur in Iraq within the next few years.

*"Sorry, Mr. Hubbard. But in these arguments you're making appears legitimation for not only a fundamental rejection of democracy and its history, but for horror."  
*
  I reject a great deal....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 28, 2004)

Please show me where you've written anything in any way negative about the Confederacy. Maybe I missed it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2004)

I didn't realize that was a requirement.


----------



## Hand Sword (Dec 28, 2004)

All in All, it still took a lot nerve to show up in that dress, she could've been killed, or at least pummeled, so for the moxie she showed, my hat's off to her!

Also let's not bash the "red necks" and her trying to make a "statement". So what? It is her right, whether anyone agrees with it or not, to wear what she wants to wear. Should we ban middle eastern people from wearing their garb because it's a "distraction" like the french did, or are trying to. And all groups at one time or another make a statement, from Black Panther shirts, Malcom X hats, Protest marches, sit ins against Thanksgiving, etc...

These are our rights, they apply to all of us, maybe one day those who want to bash her will have to protest something and make a statement. You'll have the same constitutional protections, even though you'll be getting attacked from some direction or group that you've offended.


----------



## Hand Sword (Dec 28, 2004)

I would also say, read writings of those that were actually doing the fighting for the confederacy. Originally the rich 5% of the southern population, that owned slaves ultimately took actions that caused the war. But, as usual, what the war starts out for, isn't usually what it ends for. Those that caused the war and their loved ones were exempt from doing the actual fighting. Ultimately, the war was fought by the 95% of poor white males (and females, as was found out when they were being burried, about a few regiments worth, on both sides) that had nothing to do with slavery, could care less about it, and sorry not to be pc, but bluntly, wouldn't fight a war for the "darkies" as they would put it. They fought because "your down here!" Think about it, armies of non- southerners are down there burning, looting, pillaging, raping (yes this too, a union general even passed an ordinance that if the southern women were "rude" they could be hanged), and one would wonder why they fought so hard and for so long? In that situation, If we were experiencing it, with a foreign army here doing that to us and our loved ones, we would do the same thing!

Wars occur for more reasons than just 1, Hell, even the opinion of the union troops was to fight to restore the Union, not to free the slaves.


----------



## Bammx2 (Dec 29, 2004)

Just one view from a "redneck".....

I was born and raised in north carolina and I am proud of most of my heritage.
 I have traced my family tree going waaaaay back for many,many years and found out I did have relatives fight in the civil war on BOTH sides.
 BUT....none of MY family ever owned or condoned slavery. EVER.
As a matter of fact....I am descendant of "slaves" to a certain extent.
and no...it was NOT a matter of white supremacist rape.
 The war was not only about slavery...but giving that label was an easy out and most people have no idea that anything else was involved to fuel that fire.
 I happen to like the confederate flag...and the US flag.
 Neither stands for "slavery" in my mind or anyone else I know in the south.
Don't misinterperate what I am saying...there are "racist" in the south...and the north...and west....blahblah.
 And while we are on the subject....I am damn tired of the term "racist" as well!
 Think about it....how can we be racist?! There is only 1 race on this planet...the HUMAN race! If you are "racist" then you hate ALL humans.
 Wouldn't "culturist" be more "pc"?!
It's actually what we don't like about other people...thier "culture".
(MESSAGE!)
And for Malcom X.......
 When he attended his 1st mecca...he was greeted by a WHITE person, which threw him for a loop.
 But as it went on he realised a very important thing on the matter and I quote:"Its not a black thing or a white thing, its a HUMAN thing".
 And for that epiphany...he was killed.
I have never met a 400yr old black man or white man for that matter.
 Its over!
 Poor is poor and rich is rich...both are totally colour blind.
Concentrate on the future!!!!!
Eat the rich!


----------



## expressdog01 (Dec 29, 2004)

So Whats Wrong With Redneck


----------



## expressdog01 (Dec 29, 2004)

That Would Be Her Right


----------



## expressdog01 (Dec 29, 2004)

Malcolm X Was A Racist *******PUNK


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 29, 2004)

The term 'redneck' has taken on a negative connotation.  The image conjured up by the word is:  pick-up truck, dog(s) in the cab and in the cargo bed, gun rack with more than a few in it, tobacco-chaw in the cheek, gimme-cap with a heavy equipment dealer's name emblazoned on it, etc.

What's your version of a white, liberal easterner, you *good ole* boys?

eye of the beholder.


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 29, 2004)

Funny how the massacre and removal of my people from the Carolinas, Georgia and Tennessee rarely comes up in these discussions of the south.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 29, 2004)

OK, please show where--anywhere in your posts on the Civil War--you've discussed (or even admitted) what slavery actually was, what the South's part in starting the War was, the extent of the corruption surrounding Jefferson Davis, an example of the South's getting outgeneraled and outfought, or the extent to which mythology fed directly into the subsequent century of lynching and segregation.

Or, discuss this recurrent fantasy that the ONLY reason the South lost--so very like the recurrent fantasy that the only reason the Wehrmacht lost--was that they were economically beaten. They lost in part because Grant, Sherman and their bummers kicked their asses, much as Germany lost because Eisenhower, Patton and GI Joe (together with the Rooskies and the Brits) kicked their asses. Enough with this "Lee the genius," and "Rommel the Desert Fox."

They got beat. They're on the ash can of history, good riddance--and even if they couldn't figure out alternatives between slavery and wage-slavery, we can.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 29, 2004)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> It is her right, whether anyone agrees with it or not, to wear what she wants to wear.


That point is still up for debate. The constitution does not promise that evreyone will be allowed to wear whatever they want in every situation. As cited earlier in the thread, there are situations that the supreme court has already decided that someone's clothing can be censored. Like in an educational setting, the school has the authority to assign a dress code in order to facilitate an environment for learning.

Remove the specifics of WHAT she wore that the school would not allow. The debate here shouldn't be about what that flag stands for. The question really is: should she be allowed to wear whatever she wants to her senior prom? The school says no because it is disruptive. Regardless of your personal feelings towards the confederate flag, you must know there are legions of people that find it offensive, and that dress certainly has the _potential_ to be very disruptive. But she wasn't wearing it to school, per se. The senior prom isn't exactly a learning event. So she says she should have the right to wear whatever she wants in that situation.

Ignore the specifics of what she wore, and your arguements about that - that is secondary to the question of should the shcool be able to censor her or not.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 29, 2004)

And as a final post-script--if folks are always demanding that Muslims apologize for 9/11, that they publicly renounce the violent in Islam---perhaps folks should be asked to apologize, to publicly renounce the violence that the Southern Cause employed to preserve, protect and defend slavery.

Especially given the extent to which the ideas, imagery and pseudo-history of the South continues to be used to legitimate violence and racism in the present day.

Instead, we get:

"Thanks to the Alabama division, Jacqueline was invited to their Jefferson Davis Ball in the Cradle of the Confederacy. Jacqueline was honored and had a great time. This spring has seen several school systems in Kentucky and elsewhere seek to challenge the Castorina case law, but this is, in my opinion, the most disgusting. I have spoken with the Duty family and several attorneys about proceeding with a suit. Every effort is being made by the Kentucky division to get this lawsuit filed sooner rather than later."

The "Jefferson Davis," ball? In an attempt to keep the heat low, it may be best to refrain from suggesting naming dances after other violent racists. But it does seem odd that in the past year, all sorts of these little cases-n'-suits suddenly seem to be popping up...

Has one objections to people exercising their right to fly whatever flag they choose? Nope, and one also supports the right to burn whatever flag you choose. In fact there is one place in LA that always has a Confed flag up--I eat there all the time; it's Johnny Reb's, best chain barbecue around, and--unlike the Jefferson Davis Ball--thouroughly integrated.

Funny how Jeff Foxworthy seems to get by without the Stars-and-Bars.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 29, 2004)

'Scuse me, but I thought this was a thread about a teen wearing a dress patterned from the confederate flag.  Seems to be a free speech issue, not a civil war issue, to be argued here.  

Who cares what someone's opinions of rednecks are?  Who cares what a redneck is?  Let's talk about it on another thread, if y'all do.

Those of you who wish to engage in debate on the Civil War, perhaps you could start a thread on that.

My friend was at a school dance when a group of "punks" (they were called punks because they dressed in punk rock style) were wearing huge swaztikas on their chests.  They were kicked out because the image was upsetting to most of the school.  Another time, a girl who wore an enormous cross on her chest was also asked to leave, until they found her partner who wore a huge Star of David on his, one of their friends who had an atom on his and his date who had a question mark on hers.  They were all pale blue T-shirts worn over their dance clothes and their point was that it's easy to make a point, but there is a time and place to do so and when they were asked to remove the shirts, they did so - as a group.  The teachers were impressed by this and asked to keep the shirts, which (he says) were on display for a while with the word "Unity" above them.

We should leave flag and banner prints off of clothing, since that's just the right thing to do in honor of a patriotic banner, IMHO.  Going to the prom in a dress with a pattern designed to upset certain members of the population is just plain wrong.  When she's not at a school function, let her wear whatever she pleases.  Who knows?  Maybe she'll get lucky.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 29, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Going to the prom in a dress with a pattern designed to upset certain members of the population is just plain wrong. When she's not at a school function, let her wear whatever she pleases. Who knows? Maybe she'll get lucky.


But was the pattern designed to "Upset" people, or was she proud of her heritage?  What would you say If I told you my Prom Tux was Bright Green and had a Shamrock on the back?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 29, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> But was the pattern designed to "Upset" people, or was she proud of her heritage?  What would you say If I told you my Prom Tux was Bright Green and had a Shamrock on the back?



Since those symbols aren't about a heritage of enslaving an entire racial group, I'd say it's pretty hard to argue that your prom tux was in bad taste.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 29, 2004)

C'mon, Technopunk.  I'll don my orange shamrock dress and we'll go have some ale and then brawl it out!

Seriously, I understand the analogy you were trying to put forth, but my parents lived in the South and my maternal ancestors served - some as officers - in the Confederate Army.  But my nationality is Irish / German.  I suppose I could be proud of my heritage also and wear the Confederate flag, except that the Irish, as you well know, were also slaves upon entry to the country and were considered by some to be even lower than the darker-skinned immigrants who were brought here forcibly.

Okay, I'm German in ancestry.  Shall I wear the Swastika?  No.  I'm Irish - shall I wear an IRA shirt?  No.  I'm of Southern heritage - shall I wear the Confederate flag? No.  I'm English, shall I wear the British flag? No.

I *WEAR* NO FLAG!  I pledge allegiance to the American Flag because I believe in the ideals that this country was founded on.  If Miss Thang is proud of her heritage, then let her carry her darn dress on pole in a parade down Main Street in her town, like they let the NeoNazi's march in Skokie.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> OK, please show where--anywhere in your posts on the Civil War--you've discussed (or even admitted) what slavery actually was, what the South's part in starting the War was, the extent of the corruption surrounding Jefferson Davis, an example of the South's getting outgeneraled and outfought, or the extent to which mythology fed directly into the subsequent century of lynching and segregation.


 Why?  Those points are outside the scope within which I wrote, as I indicated. They are also meaningless within the context of this threads original purpose.

 From *[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Revisiting                  the Past : Part 2 - The Road to War : Causes 
[/font]*"[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A                  large number of people believe that the American Civil War was                  fought over the concept of slavery. While this despised institution                  was a core reason, the full scope is not as simple as it would                  seem.
 .....
[/font]*1:                  Slavery*
 [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]                  A complete examination of the institution of slavery in                  the United States is well beyond this article. Within this piece                  I will concern my self with 2 areas of research.  They are                  _The North fought to free the slaves_ and _The South                  fought to keep them in bondage_.  I will not discuss                  the issue of if it was right or wrong.  By todays more enlightened                  standards, we find the concept of human bondage to be an evil.                   The viewpoint changes depending on where one is in history and                  geography."[/font]

 In that article, I cited several sources, including the actual Articles of Seccession of several of the Confederate States. 

 The 2 published articles are not about strategy, tactics, mythology, etc. They are focused on their topics, not the tangents you insist on traveling.



> Or, discuss this recurrent fantasy that the ONLY reason the South lost--so very like the recurrent fantasy that the only reason the Wehrmacht lost--was that they were economically beaten. They lost in part because Grant, Sherman and their bummers kicked their asses, much as Germany lost because Eisenhower, Patton and GI Joe (together with the Rooskies and the Brits) kicked their asses. Enough with this "Lee the genius," and "Rommel the Desert Fox."


 Why should I, or anyone here in this thread (which was about censorship, freedom of expression, and similar, not racism, or civil war history BTW) continue to wander down those unrelated tangents you like to segment to?

 The beginning of the war saw ineffecual and incompetent generals on the Union side, unable or unwilling to do what was needed to win.  Even at Gettysburg, if Meade had counter attacked, he had an excellent opportunity to either crush or inflict a mortal wound to the ANV. He didn't.
 Grant, Sheridan and Sherman were more than happy to throw as many bodies at the enemy as was needed, knowing full well there were more to fill the holes. I don't see them as great generals, but those who won a war of attrition....a tactic sadly used 40 years later in Europes trenches. Any moron can throw a few thousand men at the enemy...it takes a true General to bring them home alive.



> They got beat. They're on the ash can of history, good riddance--and even if they couldn't figure out alternatives between slavery and wage-slavery, we can.


 The winners write the history, the losers don't.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 29, 2004)

The US is the only nation that I'm aware of that has an entire semi-religon around it's flag.  I am not aware of what the Confederate tradition was/is towards their flags, especially since they seemed to have a dozen + in their short life.

I see the issues in a few ways.

1 - Did the school have a right to deny her entry in the dress?
 - The symbology is deemed offensive.
 - She had been told previously not to wear it.
The question is, if it was more subtle, would they have still denied it?
If the dress was a Nazi flag, rather than a Confederate one, or a US flag, would they still have denied it?  
So, I have to say yes, as long as the standard was equally enforced.
I would expect the same treatment if someone showed up with a Bloody Jesus dress, or a Green Man dress.
Tacky is Tacky, in all it's faces.

The school has a right to limit disruption at their event, for the many outweigh the few, in this case, the one.  

She had options.  A subtle silk scarf perhaps, or earings would make the same 'heritage' statement, without being deemed 'tacky'.

There is also the question of why she did it.  Was it truely 'Southern Pride', or to make a statement and get attention? 

For example, I run into alot of what we call 'wannabe' wiccans and pagans.  These are the folks who have to cover everything they wear with a gazillion pentacles, etc, make sure they have all the books by Crowley and Ravenwolf, oublically 'cast spells', and want you to know they are so 'pagan'.  They however almost always miss the true meaning of what they decorate themselves with. The true pagans, on the otherhand, are embarased by these attention seekers.  The Gay community runs into similar issues.  I think this issue is also similar....there are a number of uneducated folks who think 'it was all about the slaves', and use it as an excuse to be a bigoted *******...totally missing the bigger picture, which was as much cultural, as political, as social.   They wave it, lay claim to it, but they do not understand it, or what it really means.  Sadly, that also happens today, when people wave the US flag, pound their chests about freedom and rights...then want to herd all the arabs into camps.

Ignorance knows no bounds, nor do close minds.  One can be "educated", and still ignorant.




> We should leave flag and banner prints off of clothing, since that's just the right thing to do in honor of a patriotic banner, IMHO. Going to the prom in a dress with a pattern designed to upset certain members of the population is just plain wrong. When she's not at a school function, let her wear whatever she pleases.


I agree.  

She made her statement...she doesn't have to ruin one of the highlights of highschool for her classmates.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 29, 2004)

The mythology around that idiotic dress depends upon: a) the fantasy that slavery wasn't that bad; b) the fantasy that the South fought the war for "states rights," c) the fantasy that that flag, and its attendant doctrines, played no serious part in subsequent racism; d) the fantasy of the, "knightly Lee;" e) the fantasy of Southern military superiority.

And incidentally, green is worn on St. Patrick's as a symbol of Catholic Ireland and opposition to the Orange, which is the color of the House of Orange and Protestant ireland. Wearing one color or the other is exactly the same as wearing red or blue in certain parts of LA--and should you doubt this, my advice is to go cruising thru, say Ian Paisley's neighborhood wearing green on Union Day, or the slums of Armagh on St. Pat's, wearing orange.

The silly girl should be allowed to wear her silly dress, even though, when I was in Boy Scouts, I was taught that it's disrespectful to wear our Flag as an article of clothing. Let's just hope her underwear matched.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The mythology around that idiotic dress depends upon: a) the fantasy that slavery wasn't that bad;


 According to some, it wasn't.  It depends on ones position in time I suppose.   Personally, I prefer freedom.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> b) the fantasy that the South fought the war for "states rights,"


 You mean the tens of thousands of Confederates that died did so to protect the institution of slavery only, despite the fact that less than 10% of them owned slaves? It had nothing to do with economic or political power?  Wow.  I guess South Carolina was lying when they wrote this.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> c) the fantasy that that flag, and its attendant doctrines, played no serious part in subsequent racism;


 Who said that?  Certainly wasn't me.  But while you condemn the Southern flags for the part they played in acts of barbarity, where is the same condemnation for the US Flag, which was the symbol under which sanctioned genocide was enacted against the Native Americans, the conquest of Hawaii, etc.? If you are going to rally against 1 symbol used for  140 years, please pay an equally fair amount of attention to the tyranny of the past 217+ years of the Stars and Stripes.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> d) the fantasy of the, "knightly Lee;"


 I don't know if he was a knight, but by all accounts I've read, he was a Gentleman.

 Robert E Lee:
 - Graduated 2nd in class from West Point
 - Repeatedly won distinction for conduct and bravery in Mexican War.
 - Was appointed superintendent of West Point (3 years)
 - Commanded the United States troops sent to deal with the John Brown raid on Harper's Ferry.
 - Offered the command of the Union field army about to invade the South, which he refused. 

 His Civil War record is impressive as well.


> Little can be said of Lee's career as a commander-in-chief that is not an integral part of the history of the Civil War. His first success was the " Seven Days' Battle " in which he stopped McClellan's advance; this was quickly followed up by the crushing defeat of the Federal army under Pope, the invasion of Maryland and the sanguinary and indecisive battle of the Antietam. The year ended with another great victory at Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville, won against odds of two to one, and the great three days' battle of Gettysburg, where for the first time fortune turned decisively against the Confederates, were the chief events of 1863. In the autumn Lee fought a war of maneuver against General Meade. The tremendous struggle of 1864 between Lee and Grant included the battles of the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna, Cold Harbor and the long siege of Petersburg , in which, almost invariably, Lee was locally successful. But the steady pressure of his unrelenting opponent slowly wore down his strength. At last with not more than one man to oppose to Grant's three he was compelled to break out of his Petersburg lines (April 1865). A series of heavy combats revealed his purpose, and Grant pursued the dwindling remnants of Lee's army to the westward. Headed off by the Federal cavalry, and pressed closely in rear by Grant's main body, General Lee had no alternative but to surrender. At Appomattox Court House, on the 9th of April, the career of the Army of Northern Virginia came to an end.


 More information is at http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/About the General.htm which also lists several further references.





			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> e) the fantasy of Southern military superiority.


 See above.  Also see Bull Run I&II, Shiloh, Fredricksburg, etc...hell, see the first 2-21/2 years.  Some believe that if Lee had prevailed at Gettysburg, that things would have been different.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The silly girl should be allowed to wear her silly dress, even though, when I was in Boy Scouts, I was taught that it's disrespectful to wear *our Flag* as an article of clothing. Let's just hope her underwear matched.


 But Robert, she wasn't wearing "Our Flag", therefore she was not doing anything disrespectful towards "Our Flag".  Unless your flag is a Confederate Battle Flag?

 In that case, yes, it was disrespectful.  A little digging turned up some intel that both nations share the 'flag respect' concept.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Woods/3501/handling.htm  (Also has some interesting info on the history and significance of color guards, etc)

 So, while we modern Americans mostly see clothing, etc made from the US flag as tacky, or worse, this looks to have fallen into the same tacky and disrespectful area, made worse by the bigotry commonly associated with the symbology.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 29, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Funny how the massacre and removal of my people from the Carolinas, Georgia and Tennessee rarely comes up in these discussions of the south.


 Tony,
   Can you either post or PM me some info on those events?  I think I know what you're refering to, but would appreciate more intel.

 Thanks!


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 29, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> You mean the tens of thousands of Confederates that died did so to protect the institution of slavery only, despite the fact that less than 10% of them owned slaves? It had nothing to do with economic or political power?



That economic and political power was based on a horrific institution that enslaved human beings.  And a desire to extend the enslavement of human beings to further territories to the West, despite whitewashing about how the South really wanted to "get out of the slavery business".



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If you are going to rally against 1 symbol used for  140 years, please pay an equally fair amount of attention to the tyranny of the past 217+ years of the Stars and Stripes.



Guys like Robert and I actually do point this stuff out, Bob, and usually get attacked as being anti-American for doing so.  The difference is, of course, that the United States and its flag were not founded primarily on the basis of protecting those genocidal institutions.

No one is disputing that Lee was an excellent general, or that the South dominated the eastern front for the majority of the war.  But the South was *not* militarily superior in the war; the North, with little trouble, divided the South's western territories from her, blockaded her ports, and attrited her manufacturing; in the climactic battle of the war, Lee was repulsed during the only Northern invasion; and Grant decisively defeated Lee once he took over the Army of the Potomac.

In fact, only Lee's generalship, combined with the incompetence of McClellan, kept the war running as long as it did.  Any non-romantic study of the conflict will reveal these facts.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> In fact, only Lee's generalship, combined with the incompetence of McClellan, kept the war running as long as it did. Any non-romantic study of the conflict will reveal these facts.


IMHO Jackson's Valley Campaign was probably the best lead of the war. Wierd Guy and bizzarely killed by accident, but a first class tactician.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 30, 2004)

Peach,
  With respect, I disagree with this: "No one is disputing that Lee was an excellent general".

Roberts comments "the fantasy of the, "knightly Lee;"", etc. can be seen as disputing that.  

In any event, since he insists on continuing to muddy and tangent, as always, I'll exit this debate.  I said my part on the original topic, and even several of the historical tangents brought up...I've nothing to add to the original topic, and the Civil War history is best discussed in another thread, I think.

Good day all.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 30, 2004)

1. Thanks for the personal insults, Bob. Apparently, any time you don't agree, or don't follow what's said, it's easier to write that, "he insists on continuing to muddy and tangent, as always," or throw in the odd comment about the other guy's, "ignorance." I don't think you're ignernt, Bob. I don't demand that you see things the way I do. I simply think you're wrong.

2. The reason to attack the various notions about the, "knightly," Lee (defined as such because of his supposed honor) and, "the Stainless banner," is that they do indeed contribute to a quasi-religious worship of Southern images, and through them to a set of hallucinations about Southern history and current events. Most patently, the notion that Lee revolted because he had a, "higher loyalty," (see Shaara, "The Killer Angels," and elsewhere) to his home State is frequently invoked to justify the "State's Rights," claim that we see so often in the history of the Klan, or Jim Crow, of lynchings, and of segregation.

3. As mentioned, some of us are quite well aware of Ben Butler and the Northern war party, and have been for decades. However, the obvious fact the other side contained murdering racist bastards like George Armstrong Custer does not legitimate supporting a side that contained murdering racist bastards like Nathan Bedford Forrest, and that centrally--centrally--organized itself around racist doctrines, the defense of the institution of slavery, and the extension of that institution westward.

4. Oh. And if my aunt had...never mind. If Lee had won at Gettysburg, the War might've been different--if, of course, Grant hadn't at the same time taken Vicksburg and chopped a big chunk off the South. But Lee LOST--that's what actually happened--and he lost because he and his got outgeneraled, starting on the first day by Buford. He lost because the Northern troops proved tougher than the South in several key places. And he lost because Meade (unlike morons like Dan Sickles) had the sense to stay right where he was. And he lost because, having utterly failed to learn a damn thing from Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg, he gave Pickett 15,000 men and marched them straight up a hill, in the open. Apparently on the theory that Southern troops were always beetter. Now there's brilliant generalship. Oh, and incidentally--after Gettysburg, the South pretty much got its tail kicked at every opportunity.

5. Many of us think that a democratic army is inevitably going to be better than armies of slaveowners, or fascists. And we dislike the myth of Lee and Southern superiority for the same reasons we dislike the fantasy that Hitler's army was superior. And if you read the guys who make one claim, they pretty much always end up making the other.

6. Of course the chiclet should wear her goofy dress. And everybody black should show up dressed as Kleagles, and all the other sensible kids should show up dressed as Lincoln and/or John Brown. Still want to know her affiliations---and bet a shiny nickel that they're pretty ugly.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 30, 2004)

_"Of course the chiclet should wear her goofy dress. And everybody black should show up dressed as Kleagles, and all the other sensible kids should show up dressed as Lincoln and/or John Brown. Still want to know her affiliations---and bet a shiny nickel that they're pretty ugly._"

Robert, 
Words fail me right now. How is it that you manage, however circuitously (according to some), to come back 'round to the real issue? Tisn't the dress, indeed, but the motivation behind all that preparation and why the dress needed/had to be worn to the prom.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 30, 2004)

Mr. Hubbard asked that we look at the declaration South Carolina made on the occasion of its seceding from the Union.

For those who believe that the Civil War wasn't primarily about slavery and that the doctrine of State's Rights had no application to the maintenance of racism, here is an excerpt from that declaration. Please note that a) employed is the link Mr. Hibbard cited; b) this is the section in which Carolina is explaining its reason for seceding. The commentary in brackets is this writer's.


"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." "

{i.e., Carolina is complaining that a) the Union is violating that part of the Constitution which legitimated slavery, and that b) the Dred Scott decision isn't being honored. The State is claiming its legal right to enforce perpetual slavery, and to track down escaped slaves wherever they may be.} 

"This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."

{Carolina is arguing that slavery is essential to its interpretation of the Constitution, and integral to the construction of most States in the Union.} 

"The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States."

{Again, their point is that the Constitution legitimates pursuing escaped slaves, and asserts that--for example--Abolitionists who harbor slaves are criminals.} 

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. 

{The State is arguing that the growing anti-slavery movement in the North has been aided and abetted by the courts and governments of the northern States, and claiming that this dissolves the Constitution.}

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

{As mentioned elsewhere on this thread, the idea is that such phrases as, "ourselves and our posterity," apply only to whites, as do the other provisions of the Constitution. Slaves are considered something other than full human beings, since they are excluded from such considerations as obtaining, "justice--" or more precisely, slavery is considered to be the natural and just condition of the slave. In denying this and claiming that black people are fully human entitled to the same rights as anyone, the suggestion goes, the North has attacked the natural and theological underpinnings of the Constitution.} 

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. 

{Here, the doctrine of State's Rights guaranteed by the Constitution is asserted. Noteworthily, such Rights are specifically linked to the right to own slaves within states. Indeed, no other considerations are even mentioned.}

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

{The North has already destroyed the Union, because it has a) claimed the right to define slaves as something other than property; b) denied the legitimacy of the institution of slavery; c) claimed that slavery is in fact an evil; d) encouraged the Abolitionist movement; e) helped slaves escape; f) encouraged Southern slaves towards freedom.}

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. 

{The Northern attacks upon slavery have grown worse; the current President--Lincoln--claims that a) the country cannot continue, "half slave, half free," and b) the public increasingly believes that slavery must be abolished. Note: England had abolished slavery in 1832.}

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

{The partisan politicians of the North have let too many of what we would now call, "minorities," including immigrant Irish and slaves, vote. None of these, "by the supreme law of the land"--the Constitution, and God--should ever be permitted to vote, being, "incapable of becoming citizens."}

Somehow, one believes them: the complaint is that slavery is under attack, and must be defended as an institution that is fundamental to a) the Constitution; b) the identity of the slave-owning States; c) the legitimacy of American democracy.

One can see their point. The Constitution--to our national shame--did indeed legitimate slavery. However--and here's what's dumb about the, "strict constructionist," argument--the Constitution, and the country, evolved. 

It's often pointed out that the trend of law in this country has been to extend  democracy and its benefits to a wider and wider population. (Indeeed, that's one of the legitimations Bush & Co. rely upon for our current little adventures--it is the mission of the United States to extend liberty worldwide.) Against that, the 1860 Declaration by South Carolina stands as a document that will live in, "the annals of infamy."


----------



## ghostdog2 (Dec 30, 2004)

Much of the dispute between two eloquent and sincere contributors can, imho, be attrbuted to their confusing motive with cause.

The cause of the Civil War was the insistence of the Northern states that the Union was a compulsory joining of the states and their armed enforcement of that position once secession had occurred. Perhaps naively, the Southern states wished, at least publicly, that they "..be allowed to depart in peace" as one Southern statesman put it. Indeed, many, if not all the arguments used to justify the actions taken by the 13 colonies could be used to justify secession: political unions were voluntary and could/should be dissolved when they no longer met the needs of the governed, etc.
It is also fair to say that the slave holding states could claim that the Northern states had switched decks on them. The Constitution clearly recognized and protected the slave trade. The Slave states agreed to the  new Constitution only on those terms and otherwise could and would have gone their own way. As recently as 1790 the slave states had been assured that Congress would not and could not disturb their "property" rights.
And then....
As a last point of perspective, the American Rev. was literally only a generation away for some. Lee's father was Light Horse Harry Lee, Rev. hero and one of Washington's favorites. Simply put, things that now seem inevitable or even pre-ordained were very much in flux.
The motive for the Civil War was slavery. It was their fear of and resistance to the emancipation movement in the North that motivated the South to leave the Union. In their defense, many were like Lee and believed slavery evil and wished to see it end. They saw themselves forced to war to defend their homes. Winfield Scott offered the command of all Union forces to Lee, whom he considered the finest field commander in the Army. Lee declined, resigned his commission and returned to Va. "...hoping never to draw my sword again."
And then......
p.s. The Army of Northern Virginia was never defeated, sir. She was overcome by History.
As for the dress: The courts protect speech not clothing. In some strictly defined areas, a flag or other object is recognized as "symbolic speech" and afforded protection accordingly. Is that what's happening here? Probably not. Unless Daisy Duke is going to demonstrate not dance.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 30, 2004)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> <snip> Winfield Scott offered the command of all Union forces to Lee, whom he considered the finest field commander in the Army. Lee declined, resigned his commission and returned to Va. "...hoping never to draw my sword again."
> And then......
> p.s. The Army of Northern Virginia was never defeated, sir. She was overcome by History.


Indeed, history shows that Lee, a graduate with honors from West Point is considered one of the most brilliant military minds in history. That under his command he (and other brilliant generals) were able to draw out the war for so long (with heavy losses to BOTH sides) against a superior and outnumbering force says something about his command abilities, which of course reflect his intelligence and character.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 30, 2004)

Dear Casper the Canine:

Did you not read the declaration of the South Carolina legislature on the occasion of their secession?

Or hear one of the North's rejoinders:

In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the sea
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free
While God is marching on.


Dear Spelunker:

Lee may have been brilliant on a tactical level. But a really brilliant man--a genuinely moral man too, for that matter--would have seen through the times, and figured out how to honor both his oath to the Constitution and honor his home state. Lincoln transcended his times and his education--Lee did not. At the end, though, Lee may have done better--when he called for the Souith to genuinely surrender.

And even just as a general--he got beat to a standstill at Antietam, and whupped bad at Gettysburg. And if he had bad circumstances to contend with, so did Grant--and the failed shopkeeper beat the the Southern aristocrat, beat him bad.

Or did you want to defend Pickett's Charge as good generalship?

And to others:

In the end, the people who have mythologized Lee to justify all sorts of uglinesses are a lot more guilty than he ever was. Be proud of your people, by all means--your people included Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass. But don't try to justify a war fought in large part for slavery.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 31, 2004)

Cant figure how Pickett's Charge makes Lees legacy as a General a failure...dont know of any military leader with a 100% track record of victory.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 31, 2004)

And I really really don't see what Lee's brilliance or lack thereof has to do with this girl's right (or lack thereof) to wear a dress that looks like the Confederate flag.

But maybe I'm just ignorant.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 31, 2004)

Has this girl ever stated what the thinks this flag is supposed to represent? She said she was proud of "her background" I wonder what she thinks that is/means?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 31, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Has this girl ever stated what the thinks this flag is supposed to represent? She said she was proud of "her background" I wonder what she thinks that is/means?


And therein lies the rub.

While it's been an education reading the hysterical -- oops -- historical posts (and ripostes) about the Civil War between two people who really know their stuff (and I do mean that, you guys:asian: ), it is thread ganking at its finest.

Robert, you _did_ say, not in so many words, that this little girl's motivation is what is really the key to this whole thing.

So, anyone come up with a companion article which gives us more information?  I haven't yet.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 31, 2004)

Why is Lee's mythology and generalship connected to the prom dress?

Precisely because of what this girl was thinking. The concepts, "white pride," and, "the South," and, "the Stainless Banner," and, "Southern history," and "General Lee," are intertwined--and are the sort of thing that legitimates actions like wearing the dress. 

It isn't a matter of historical reality at all. It's a matter of what people THINK about history--a matter of what they think happened, of what they think about the story behind events, of what they think about the causes and consequences of events like the Civil War. 

One testimony to this is this: note that way that certain concepts and images appear, tangled up together, and are quickly connected to issues such as immigration, affirmative action, etc. An interpretation: the myth of a, "freedom-fighting," South that was beaten only the Northern masses and their superior industry is being used to anchor the notion of, "repressed white men," who were put down after the War, have been kept down by waves of carpetbaggers (intellectuals, liberals, etc., simply become new carpetbaggers in this mythology), and things have gotten so bad that now it is the, "white man," who is oppressed. 

Two interesting notes: the role of Southern women tends to be curiously absent from these scenario, though not from associated myth-makings; see, for example, the survivalist genre in science fiction, including John Ringo's, "Gust Front." And second, the claim that the structure of racism has now simply been inverted so that, "white men," are on the bottom (a claim that actually isn't justified by reality, but only by myth) and, "the colored," (never quite said, but clearly meant) suggests stongly a sort of shame-faced recognition of the actual ideological structure that supported slavery.

In brief, that dress represents--as her supporters insisted and still insist--white pride, white Southern history, both grounded on a set of myths about the Civil War. 

As, to be sure, are certain ideas about the North, Lincoln, democracy, the Union, etc. However, there's a difference: the set of myths about the North have historically been used to extend democracy, to open up the Constitution to everybody, to remind working-class people that they matter. And the set of myths about the South, historically speaking, have been used to legitimate the Klan, to justify not only the imposition of what boils down to apartheid but the rise of lynchings from 1890-1930, and to allow the doctrine of "State's Rights," to justify everything from attacks on integration to Bible-thumping by judges. Not incidentally, they also play a direct role in the contination of the dumbest myth about the South, that of a happy happyland in which aristocrats ruled over happy slaves and contented white folks.

So--to say something bad about General Lee, whose image is one of the linchpins in this set of myths, is to say something bad about the whole South.

Pickett's Charge wasn't a bad day or a little oopsie or a chance that needed to be taken and mighta worked. It was an arrogant, foolish attack launched by a general who had grossly overextended himself and his men, who found himself (like that fool Custer) hip deep in Indians, and who had absolutely failed to learn from previous battles what modern weapons and a good field of fire dominated by solid, entrenched troops would do to people dumb enough to walk slowly up a hill towards them, out in the open.

And another thing Lee failed to understand--the political character of modern war. Grant got it, early on--which is one of the reasons that the South woulda lost no matter what. They got whupped on the field, and they got out-thought.

But that prom dress' mythology denies all of that. It rests, in fact, upon one of the biggest lies of the last century: the lie that white men in America are oppressed as a group. 

One has a hard time understanding what all that self-victimization is about--weird, because guys like Michael Savage make their careers and their wealth claiming to be victims, then turn around and claim that "they," are always whining about how much they've been picked on...

Personally, I think it's a way to avoid recognizing the extent to which working people in this country have gotten screwed. But if you're dead set into the fantasy that Capitalism Is the Greatest, that one's gonna be hard to face.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 31, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Why is Lee's mythology and generalship connected to the prom dress?
> 
> Precisely because of what this girl was thinking. The concepts, "white pride," and, "the South," and, "the Stainless Banner," and, "Southern history," and "General Lee," are intertwined--and are the sort of thing that legitimates actions like wearing the dress.
> 
> ...


I can always count on you to 'edumacate' us further.  Can I audit one of your classes online??  :idunno:


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 31, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Has this girl ever stated what the thinks this flag is supposed to represent? She said she was proud of "her background" I wonder what she thinks that is/means?



BOO-YAH, Tom.  Right on.

We might want to remember that she is a teenager and may either not fully understand just what that flag represents (except for the nods from her parents and relatives, of course) or may think it means something it doesn't.

Nevertheless - her parents obviously approved or allowed her to wear it.  

Proud of her heritage?  Which heritage?  That her ancestors fought bravely in a war? or of all the hangings that still continue in the Deep South?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 31, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Cant figure how Pickett's Charge makes Lees legacy as a General a failure...dont know of any military leader with a 100% track record of victory.



It doesn't make Lee a failure, but it demonstrates that he was capable of failure, since he ordered the charge.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 31, 2004)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> p.s. The Army of Northern Virginia was never defeated, sir. She was overcome by History.



Spoken like someone who's never studied the Civil War, sir.  The Army of Northern Virginia was defeated several times, including at the end of the war, when it *surrendered*.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 31, 2004)

Robert states that the was over slavery.
I state it was over the enforcement of law.

We are both right, to an extent.  Robert missed the fact that the slaves in the Union were not freed until after the war had been over for some time, that during thw war  slaves were not freed in conquered territory, and were in fact returned to slavery by federal mandate.  He also ignores the role of New England shippers who were the the primary importers of slaves to the US, and key players in keeping the institution alive longer than desired by the Southern governments during the constitutional debates.  Also avoided is the reason for the North phasing it out, which was economic, not moral, and the fact that some Northern states such as New Jersey listed slaves in the 1860 census.  

But, Robert is right in stating that the institution of slavery was heavily referenced in the various articles of seccession.  Texas' was by modern standards, very racially biased.  In all honesty, it disgusted me reading it.  I am not defending the institution of slavery.  I will (when I have a chance) be addressing the myths of American slavery in an extended article.

But as I said, that argument isn't the point here.  I will be more than happy to debate him, or anyone on Civil War history, in another thread.  Discussion of generals, tactics, etc aren't fitting here. Purhaps a mod can weed out those tangents and combine them into another more focused thread?

The "Battle" flag, of all the various Confederate flags is the symbol most associated with Southern Racism.  But this isn't the first time this dress has been seen.  It was supposedly in the movie "To Wong Foo Thanks for everything Julie Newmar" worn by RuPaul!  Now, is it ok when used in a movie as a prop worn by a black drag queen, but racist when worn by a white teen girl out to get attention for herself?

I think the question is as Georgia stated. "Proud of her heritage? Which heritage? That her ancestors fought bravely in a war? or of all the hangings that still continue in the Deep South?"

If it's a heritage based on racial intolerance, bigotry and hatred, then I honestly can't defend that.  If it's a heritage of independence, strong family values and low government influence...well, I can get behind that.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 31, 2004)

I have had quite an interesting time, lurking here and reading posts.

My question to all concerned: If you were, say, a chaperone, or the principal of the school, and saw this girl walk in in her besequined glory, what would you have said?  To her, and/or to other students.

Just curious.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 31, 2004)

I would have said nothing, but alerted security to be prepared if needed.


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 31, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I have had quite an interesting time, lurking here and reading posts.
> 
> My question to all concerned: If you were, say, a chaperone, or the principal of the school, and saw this girl walk in in her besequined glory, what would you have said? To her, and/or to other students.
> 
> Just curious.


 I would observe carefully to watch the reactions of people.  Maybe nothing will happen, but if something does go down, then will have to step in to try to calm things down.  As Bob said, have security ready if needed.

 - Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 31, 2004)

Well generally (in my experience with a couple of Prom's I've been to) security meant no more than a couple of teachers willing to volunteer their time. Basically they weren't security just chaperones. 
But yeah, I'd probably do the same... just sit and watch and if anyone complains then it's the nature of the complaint. Also I'd hope she wasn't one of the nominees for Prom Queen...


----------



## ghostdog2 (Dec 31, 2004)

"Precisely because of what this girl was thinking" rmcrobertson
"Can I audit one of your classes online?? " Kenpo Tiger

Me too. Preferably the one on mind reading. How, in the name of Grant's ghost, do you know "precisely" what this poor girl is thinking?
Casper the Canine Clairvoyant


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 31, 2004)

Thought, reading, experience, and the arguments put forth by others such as yourself. Well, that and the fact that she apparently felt it an honor to be a special guest at the Jefferson Davis (good to know there is one) ball.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 1, 2005)

Alright, I can accept that. For a second, I thought you were going to say, because of that no neck lawyer with two first names standing next to her.
And the CSA group that's paying part of her legal fees.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 1, 2005)

Well, I dont know if this is what this girl thinks, but from just a little research, this is pretty close to what most "Southern Pride" types believe....

http://www.siptn.org/updates/feb/heritage.htm


----------



## Satt (Jan 1, 2005)

Good post. It allways seems to boil down to money somehow. Oh well, I would still go to the prom with her. It's not really about what she was wearing, but what she was wearing underneath. He he. %-}  I bet THAT wasn't in the news story was it? LOL.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2005)

Tom
  Thats pretty much the way I look at it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 1, 2005)

Well, gee, thanks for the connection to the Southern Independence Party website...the one with the big picture of Nathan Bedford Forrest on the top, right across from Robert E. Lee. The website, too, with the links to the, "Freinds of Forrest," website, the yahoos who want to build a monument to this Forrest character.

And who was Nathan Bedford Forrest? Well, he was a rather brave and resourceful Southern general, according to Wikipedia, known for his brilliant handling of highly-mobile cavalry. 

And oh yes, the was also the man who:

...led several more raids into the area, one of which ended in the controversial Battle of Fort Pillow on April 12, 1864. In that battle, Forrest demanded unconditional surrender, or else he would "put every man to the sword" - language he frequently used to expedite a surrender. Only this time, he meant it, and his men stormed the fort and began killing the men inside. The Confederates especially targeted several hundred African American soldiers inside the fort. These captured solders were crucified on tent frames and then burnt alive. Forrest eventually called off the massacre and accepted the surrender of the survivors, but only 80 of the 262 black troops survived...


...Embittered by the state of his homeland after the war, in May 1866, Forrest became "Grand Wizard" of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization of Confederate veterans. Because of Forrest's prominence, the organization grew rapidly under his leadership. In addition to aiding Confederate widows and orphans of the war, many members of the new group began to use force to oppose the extension of voting rights to blacks, and to resist Reconstruction-introduced measures for the ending of segregation. In 1869, Forrest, disagreeing with its increasingly violent tactics, ordered the Klan to disband. However, many of its groups in other parts of the country ignored the order and continued to function.

But there's no connection between these, "white pride," and "Southern heritage," guys and racism and the Klan. None at all. Nope, not in the least, absolutely not. Nohow, no way. Didn't happen. Wikipedia made it up. Well, OK, they didn't make it up, but other people committed massacres and crucified black soldiers too. OK, well actually, they didn't so much crucify prrisoners because they were black, but Forrest eventually stopped the crucifixions and 80 survived. And anyway Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Well, yeah. Forrest founded the Klan (that's the Ku Klux Klan, ladies and gentlemen...yes, that Klan) but he left when he thought they got too violent. Anyway, Muslims should reject violence by radical Muslims even if Forrest never...well, did. And anyway the Klan started out just as a political group that had nothing to do with slavery and racism (which explains their large African-American membership...oh wait. Damn.) And they only got violent because of Northern oppression. And if you can have Martin Luther King Day, what's wrong with Nathan Bedford Forrest Day?

What's next? A drive for a national "Take Your Secretary to Lunch, It's Goebbels' Birthday Day?"

Lovely, guys. Really a lot to be proud of there.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2005)

I can agree with a statement, without liking, supporting or endorsing the person saying it.  On the page linked to, there is nothing there that I disagree with.  I can not comment on any other pages linked to by it however, not what they link to.

I do not know much about Forrest, other than he was a Confederate Cavalry general, and founder of the Klan.  Robert posted more information than I knew.
So, he founded the group (in response to the terms of reconstruction imposed on the conquered and ruined South), but eventually grew disillusioned with it's increasingly violent attitude.  He called for it's disolution and left the group, yet it continued without him.

So, anyone who forms a group, but later leaves should be eternally held responsible for it's actions, even after their involvement ended?  Well then, Damn that Lincoln fellow for the Florida election issues in 2000. /sarcasm

I do find it interesting that Harry Turtledove (a renowned author of alternative sci-fi, who happens to be Native American) used Forrest as a hero in one of his books (Guns of the South), which did in fact touch on racism and Southern attitudes.  

My problem with Roberts arguments is that they are all black/white.  Reality is rarely that way.  Forrest may have been the founder of the Klan, but what does his leaving really say? I do find that question interesting, and will have to do some research on it.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 1, 2005)

I dont think the Confederates and the Nazis were quite in the same vicinity on the evil scale. Sherman and his soldiers did some atrocious stuff too. As did the Japanese during WWII. The US to the Indians etc....I think its important to attempt to understand exactly what these people believe these symbols mean today. Theres obviously a difference between what our countrymen think this flag represents. Just brushing it off as "stupid redneck think" is shortsighted..


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2005)

To suggest that those who fought for the Confederacy were only fighting over slavery is an insult to the thousands of brave soldiers and civilians who died in that war.  One  must wonder outloud at the intensity of the brainwashing that has taken place in the years since the war.  Especially in regards to the number of decendents of Confederate veterans, who themselves are of African decent.  What evil must it have taken to delude them into fighting to keep their relations in bondage?  Confederate flags are racist?  We can of course ask Bob Harrison and  Dr. Emerson Emory both African Americans and both members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, it's membership is open to all male descendents of any veteran who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces. They do some intense lineage checking to verify such things.

From a related website:


> It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, saw the elephant also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, Will you fight? Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that biracial units were frequently organized by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, youve eliminated the history of the South.



So, please, tell me again....if this symbol is so hated, if the war was so much over slavery....why did African Americans then fight and die under that banner, and why do their decendants today take pride in that fact?

Any symbol can and will be misused.  Confederate Flag, swastika, Cross and Ol' Glory.  The swastika today has been pretty much bound to Arian hate groups.  Most of the people you run across today with it, especially the 'skinhead' will fit the stereotype.  But I know 1 woman who holds it dear, as it means something sacred to her, and she refuses to abandon it because some closeminded morons have abused and corrupted it.  I, and many others see the Confederate Cause, not one of racism, bigotry or a desire to hold other men in bondage, but of freedom, independance, and the deeper meaning of this nation, which today in our Hamiltonian bloated government, we have lost, to our eternal shame.

I despise the bigotry and violence that has been done, by the Klan, the Nazis, and all like them.  I can hate the man, but respect his words.  Robert mentioned Joseph Goebbels.  Goebbels was many things...and stood for many things...almost all of which is repugnant to me.  He did however on occation speak great truths.  Do we ignore those truths out of contempt for the man, or do we acknowledge them, despite the man?

This girl wore a dress, made to represent a historical symbol of her heritage.  That heritage is alternatively longed for, or damned, based on what one believe to be true.  If that banner was a symbol of repression, I have to wonder why those it would repress, would fight, and die under it?

As to her intent?  Attention-seeking would still be my guess.  Teens rarely understand the deeper meanings of things.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 1, 2005)

"Attention-seeking would still be my guess. Teens rarely understand the deeper meanings of things."

Bob, Looks like you and Robertson _do_ agree on something.

I agree with you.  But we'll never know, unless she says what her logic, such as it is, was.

In the meantime, she looks pretty bad.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2005)

Ironically enough, I think Robert and I agree on a lot of things, often more than it seems.  But, you can't have a debate without someone on both sides, and I sometimes will argue a position just to force the side I do agree with to prove it's point. Regarding Robert and I....I just haven't figured out which of us is Jane Curtin and which is Dan Aykroyd.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 1, 2005)

Interesting scale of evil some folks have...one in which ordering the CRUCIFIXION, and let us just repeat, the CRUCIFIXION of a hundred eighty or so or so UNITED STATES ARMY SOLDIERS (again, that's 180+ US ARMY TROOPS) because they're black isn't such a big deal, and FOUNDING THE KU KLUX KLAN, and let us just repeat, FOUNDING THE KU KLUX KLAN, well that  don't mean you're a bad person.
The argument that symbols such as the Stainless Banner can be divorced from their history and certain aspects of their present meaning is just plain silly. Are there aspects of Southern history to be proud of? Obviously. But words--and symbols--do not mean whatever we individually decide that they mean, and these "pride," sites make it damn clear exactly what's meant--that flag is associated with pride in a reprehensible history, and a continued insistence upon the superiority of whites.

Every time one looks up one of these, "Southern pride," sites, their imagery, their language, their links and their fantasies of history bespeak as ugly a racism as there is. Putting up a monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest--Americans, who (whatever their faults or imperialisms) have given so much for freedom and democracy ought to be ashamed of such grotesque ideas. 

And as for Goebbels' "great truths?" The man was the official Nazi propagandist. He helped lie about the German past in about 87 different ways--lies, it is worth noting, that looks an awful lot like these lies about the nobility of the South, the happy paradise of the antebellum South, the way that slavery warn't all that bad, the way that the Aryan Nation was betrayed by immigrants and mongrels and liberals. 

It's those sorts of lies that encourage present-day folks frustrated with the way they're being screwed by the likes of Bush and his cronies, and by historical developments in capitalism, and by the disappearance of what they see as their privileges, to rant about how all the immigrants and the darkies and the whoevers are getting all the jobs, getting all the breaks, taking all the advantages, turning around and oppressing "white men," whatever that means.

See through it: you're smarter and better than that. Forrest was a murdering bastard. The South fought for slavery at least as much as it fought for anything else. "White men," are simply being treated more like everyone else has long been treated. Michael Savage is a doodyhead. 

That Flag symbolizes an evil rebellion, and a country that is better gone, dead and buried. There are other choices than advanced capitalism and a twisted, slave-based feudalism trumpeting "state's rights," every five minutes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2005)

Thank you Robert for the in-depth look at General Forrest.

Care to comment on my other points?

Now, please tell me which is worse?
Cruicifying an enemy soldier, or raping non-combatants, and murdering their children?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 2, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Ironically enough, I think Robert and I agree on a lot of things, often more than it seems. But, you can't have a debate without someone on both sides, and I sometimes will argue a position just to force the side I do agree with to prove it's point. Regarding Robert and I....I just haven't figured out which of us is Jane Curtin and which is Dan Aykroyd.


Well, if offered the choice...

Yes, I've stated a few times that Robert, among others around here (ahem) will argue a point for the sake of debate, and that's healthy.  We all benefit from the discussion and possibly learn a thing or two.

There are also those who are just plain nasty, and thankfully most of them either stay out of the Study or have gone from the forum entirely.:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 2, 2005)

First, a personal note: I actually don't argue for ideas that I don't believe. I dislike sophistry, and I don't believe that this is an appropriate medium in which to act as other people's teacher.

Second: what's the point, Mr. Hubbard? Several have pointed out--and been royally insulted for it, too--that guys like Custer and Chivington and Calley were murdering bastards. Are folks actually trying to gin up a defense for taking the likes of Nathan Bedford Forrest as a good role model in this "white pride," nonsense on the grounds that every fourth grader tries--the old, "Yeah, but they were doing it too!!" defense?

Third: don't sanitize the history. Those captured troops weren't CRUCIFIED (yes, CRUCIFIED) because they were enemy troops--they were CRUCIFIED (yes, that's crucified) specifically because they were black.

Many of us look clearly at the past, as clearly as we can. We don't offer apologies and excuses and, "they did it toos!" though we do try to rethink from time to time. 

And oh yes--we try to understand how our ideas and imageries and what have you are tangled up with the rest of our culture. Folks have repeatedly argued that the Confederate Flag, its "Stainless banner," version, that silly dress, this "white pride," claptrap, can be separated from any bits of history or present culture they happen to find embarassing. Well, that's just nonsense.

The argument was made that "Southern Pride," movements had nothing to do with a racist history that was dead and gone. One poster cited a website as an example of this "fact;" went to that site, and lo and behold! the first frickin' thing visible as the site loaded were two images that seemed awfully familiar. The stainless Robert E. Lee on the right, and the heroic role model Nathan Bedford Forrest on the left. Went to the second or so link on the site, the one titled, "friendsofforrest." Sure enough; it was THAT Forrest, and these dolts want to build a monument to him. (I guess they couldn't find a good picture of, say, Rudolf Heydrich.) Looked the guy up on Wikipedia--yup, war criminal and Klan founder.

Now why one would wish to build one's own pride on such a foundation....ick. There're so many Southerners to be proud of--you can construct your own list--who weren't murdering, racist traitors to their country, who rebelled because--as they said again, and again, and again--they believed that the Constitution had reaffirmed their God-given right to own black people as property, and the North was going to wipe out slavery.

The primary explanations have to do with the sense of disempowerment among "white men," these days, as the world changes in ways that they're not ready for. They find themselves under all sorts of pressures--primarily economic pressures, because the economy has changed and the jobs they depended upon in farming and small businesses and manufacturing have been wiped out by agribusiness, or by domestic corporations like Walmart, or by multinationals that ship their work overseas. They find themselves under a kind of sexual/family/gender-based pressure, because not only has the economy shoved everybody who was at home into working, but women just don't act like their grandmas did any more. They find themselves under a sort of media pressure, because ads and shows and the world shove more and more consumer goods and ungettable desires on them and their kids--and not only can they not afford them, they quickly find that even when they get it, it ain't what they want.

And to top it all off, the explanations that would actually help them understand what's actually happened, in the world and to them, are foreclosed from discussion because the likes of Michael Savage and our current President have identified those explanations as, "liberal," or, "Communist," or, "Socialist," or, "America-hating," or, "Satanic," or what have you. In their place, they've pushed a pack of lies--lies, it so happens, that line their pockets and feather their nests.

So as one among several solaces, people turn to rewriting their history and trying to rewrite the present world. That's what this tripe about the, "Stainless Banner," and, "white pride," is really all about--it's an attempt to make the past something else, something on which they can ground a resistance to the fact that the world has irrevocably changed.

It doesn't work very well. Among other things, one is left trying to pump up the likes of Nathan Bedford Forrest, and wearing goofy dresses to proms.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2005)

So, after all that, you still will not address my other points?

I do not believe anyone here is attempting to sanitize things.  Understand them better yes, sanitize? no.

I asked you a question, several.
You refuse to answer them as they do not fit your mission.

I never said that Forrest was a "role model". 

Why is the Confederate flag not seen as a racist flag in Africa, while many others in fact are?
Why are the flags of Brazil and Cuba not equally reviled, as slavery existed in those nations for years after it was ended here?
Why is the US flag not equally reviled as a racist instrument, as it too is used by hate groups such as the Klan?

So Robert, I believe I have your position clear.
Southern Pride = Racism
Southern Heritage = Racism
Civil War = Slavery
Southern Military and People = Fought to protect slavery.

It is of course interesting that in this continued character assassination of the Southerner that you continue to promote, you miss a few key points.
If these men were such traitors, why did they (the south) fight so hard to preserve the Union?
- Virginia (Home of REL) fought against seccession until ordered by Lincoln to provide troops to illegally invade South Carolina after is LEGALLY left the Union.
- Southerners were the leading voice of abolition in the formative years of this nation, and were souted down by New Englanders.  (Jefferson wanted to include causes in the Declaration of Independence highlighting one of the reasons for the Revolution was KingGeorge wouldn't do anything to STOP the importation of slaves)
- Northerners more often than not didn't free their slaves, they sold them to the South because it wasn't economically feasable to keep them in the industrial North, but in the agrocultural South it was.
- Southern and Northern abolitionists worked together towards the gradual phasing out of slavery, and encouraged a system similar to that used by England, up until the 1830's, when Radical  abolitionists began promoting slave uprisings.  This is similar to what led to the Revolution in that King George did the same.  The bloody uprisings in Haiti for example terrified slaveholders in both the South and the North.

Robert, you paint this picture that the whole South and it's history is racist, and that anyone who dares defend it must be too.  You condemn Forrest for his actions while saintifying Grant, Sheridan and Sherman, 3 men who on orders from Lincoln and Stantton did more harm to race relations in the south than Forrest could ever have done alone.

You accuse me of revisionist history? How?  I am going to the source, statements made by these individuals...not the interpretations upon interpretations of those who write after them.

The Lincoln administration waged a war to collect taxes and tarrifs, not to end slavery.
The North was more unfriendly than the south, with the 'free' territories often writing 'black' laws denying -any- negro a right to exist in them.
The North waged a war of conquest, and punishment, while the South fought in self defense.
The South for the most part treated it's prisoners more humanely than the North. You will of course mention Andersonville as a Southern Atrocity.  I will counter early with Elmira. In fact, it was passed as law that Confederate prisoners will be abused. "Near the end of the war, the United States Congress passed a law making the poor treatment of prisoners the official policy of the federal government. The official U.S. policy on Confederate POWs is stated in the preamble to HR 97, passed by both Houses of Congress:

_Rebel prisoners in our hands are to be subjected to a treatment finding its parallels only in the conduct of savage tribes and resulting in the death of multitudes by the slow but designed process of starvation and by mortal diseases occasioned by insufficient and unhealthy food and wanton exposure of their persons to the inclemency of the weather._"

So Robert, please, do not play the high card here, or pretend that the issues were so simple, or that North was so pure either.  Both sides had their share of bastards, and the biggest bastard won.

Now, can you refute my points?


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First, a personal note: I actually don't argue for ideas that I don't believe. I dislike sophistry, and I don't believe that this is an appropriate medium in which to act as other people's teacher.
> 
> Second: what's the point, Mr. Hubbard? Several have pointed out--and been royally insulted for it, too--that guys like Custer and Chivington and Calley were murdering bastards. Are folks actually trying to gin up a defense for taking the likes of Nathan Bedford Forrest as a good role model in this "white pride," nonsense on the grounds that every fourth grader tries--the old, "Yeah, but they were doing it too!!" defense?
> 
> ...



Yup...I was waitin' for it.

Regardless of the inner details of the arguement, this post is all too true, I think...

Paul


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 2, 2005)

Can any of you come forward with thread about the women who fought for the South during the Civil War?  Not in this thread, as that would probably be too far afield, but maybe post a new one?  The things we don't learn in revisionist history classes...

I also don't get the whole point about white males feeling that they are less than what they were.  Seems to me it would behoove most men to have their wives go to work: it's empowering to be able to earn $$ for one's time spent, not to mention how much more buying power it grants the household.  Oh yes.  And those little things called self-respect and self-confidence...


----------



## pete (Jan 2, 2005)

Lilly-belle your hair is golden brown...but a Southern man don't need you around, anyhow)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2005)

KT,
  I'm in the midst of researching the Myths of American Slavery right now, so can't answer that fully.  Here is 1 link with a little starter info.
http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/hairston_awl/chapter1/medialib/socresearch2.html

As to Sheridans opinion of Southern Women, it I think shows the true humanity and passion by which Lincoln and his honorable Generals lived.
http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/roswellwomen.htm

Robert crossed the years to bring up Goebbels, who like our good comedic buddy the Iraqi IM, had a 'special' view of reality.  But, since Robert jumped ahead to WW2, I'll tangent there for a moment as well.  We've heard of the cruilty of the Germans.  Anyone who has studied the European campaign will know the Malmedy Massacre, where 86 American soldiers were murdered.  Lesser known however were the numerous incidents where German POW's were murdered by Allied (yes US) troops.  One could bring up the Nazi death camps...and one can also bring up the US camps where Japanese Americans went.  "You can't compare the 2"....Bull.  Yes, the Nazi ones were horrible beyond imagine..but ask the decendents of those Japanese Americans, guilty of nothing more than their own ancestory, and they will say their fate was terrible too.  In both cases, lives were lost, and people destroyed. 

I do not say this to condone, lessen, or otherwise diminish the evil that was the 3rd Riech.  I say this to simply point out, that both sides in war do evil.  Forrests troops cruicified Union troops, who were black.  Sheridans troops raped and murdered white -and- black women, who were Southern.  The difference here, is Forrests victims were at least willing combatants.  No, I don't believe -either- side was right, or less guilty of sin than the other.  BOTH! were despicable.   But Robert chooses to ignore the evil of his "Anti-Slave" group, while condemning those who fought for the South.



> There're so many Southerners to be proud of--you can construct your own list-


Who Robert?  Who meets with your approval to this list?  You seem to find fault with everyone.  Longstreet?  Pickett?  Hood? 
You have condemned Lee, Davis and Forrest.  Who else is on your list of "evil nasty traitorous southern bastards"?

I'm sorry, but the History of the Popular is nice, but, often misses those ugly truths.
Lincoln is an honored figure in the North, believed to be this kind fatherly figure.  The fact that he waged an illegal war, was responsible for the mass murder of thousands of innocent women and children, and a racist to boot are all ignored, instead he is one of the few hallowed "American Martyrs", and to question him is to invite accusations of 'bigotry' and similar character assassination by the Lincolnites.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 3, 2005)

Bob,

I'm kind of at a loss regarding the citations in the first piece. It almost looks like she's citing Robert in places. The second piece seems to be anecdotal evidence from members of that organization. Can you direct me as to where I can try to find things other than what Google considers important?

I'd like to see something a bit less biased. Robert?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 3, 2005)

First off, the link to Pearson's is a link to a beginner student's essay on a website devoted to teaching composition. The story on the deportations (or did somebody get CRUCIFIED, and they forgot to mention it?) comes from a website devoted to the sterling character of NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST, war criminal (had BLACK soliders CRUCIFIED because they were BLACK) and founder of the Ku Klux Klan (the KU KLUX KLAN...yes, THAT Klan). 

Actual scholarly sites are not that hard to find. What's the problem?

For the 14th time: nobody's argued that everything the Union did was just nifty. And some of have had a pretty good idea what Sherman's March was all about since we were 12....despite the recurrent insistence otherwise, which appears a lot more grounded in right-wing propaganda than what anybody's actually been writing. 

However, we aren't showing up at parties wearing (or even waving) Sherman's battle flags; we aren't maundering on about the, "Stainless Banner," we aren't pretending about history; we aren't taking the scummy likes of Forrest as heroes; we aren't overlooking little things like the Klan and a century of lynchings after the War; we aren't writing about, "cleansing," the swastika or its equivalent (which is why Goebbels et al keep coming up).

And above all, we aren't carrying on about a "white pride," based on a made-up history, while simultaneously complaining that, "immigrants," with dark skins are getting all the benefits and the good jobs these days.

Ya know, it's odd. Violate one's oath to one's country, lead a rebellion, crucify black prisoners, fight desperately to defend and to extend the institution of slavery, found the Ku Klux Klan, invent Jim Crow, and gosh, not so long before one turns out to just be a patriotic American. But man, criticize our current Prez for his lunatic foreign policy in Iraq, a policy based on generally-acknowledged lies and distortions carried out on a level not seen since Reagan and Bush in Iran, and Johnson in Vietnam, and oh my god, Michael Savage was right and these people are America-hating traitors. 

And here's another odd thing. None of these discussions about heroes ever center on anybody other than white Southern generals and politicians. Don't find 'em on this thread, don't find 'em on the cited websites. Just white generals who fought for the South. Huh.

Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Twain, Thoreau, Emmett Till, Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney, and many others are better heroes. One doesn't need them to be white; one does't need them to be generals. Apparently too, such choices leave it a lot easier to see present day reality.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> However, we aren't showing up at parties wearing (or even waving) Sherman's battle flags; we aren't maundering on about the, "Stainless Banner," we aren't pretending about history; we aren't taking the scummy likes of Forrest as heroes; we aren't overlooking little things like the Klan and a century of lynchings after the War; we aren't writing about, "cleansing," the swastika or its equivalent (which is why Goebbels et al keep coming up).


  Lets see.
  - No parties for me waving any flags.
 - Not 'maundering' about anything. I'm calling it by it's accepted name/nicname. Just as the "Stars and Stripes" is refered to as "Old Glory".
  - I never said Forrest was a hero, nor have I overlooked a century of hate crimes. 
 - I said it may take time to reclaim the swastika from the racists. That symbol is older than this country, and once had positive characteristics. It may never be done.



> And above all, we aren't carrying on about a "white pride," based on a made-up history, while simultaneously complaining that, "immigrants," with dark skins are getting all the benefits and the good jobs these days.


  -white pride - thats a crime, but black pride isn't? Sounds like a bigoted conclusion to me. Actually, I find little to take pride in.  "White" americans were responsible for numerous hate crimes, genocidal actions and other things.  I don't look at the "Trail of Tears", Wounded Knee, Conquest of Hawaii, segregation, etc and smile.  I look at them and weep. 
  - Made Up History - What??????  Where.
  - Complaining - Last I checked, there are grants for black, red, yellow, but not white. Grants for female, but not male. We have NOW, and the NAACP. Wheres NAWP? Oh wait, thats the Klan. /sarcasm



> Ya know, it's odd. Violate one's oath to one's country, lead a rebellion, crucify black prisoners, fight desperately to defend and to extend the institution of slavery, found the Ku Klux Klan, invent Jim Crow, and gosh, not so long before one turns out to just be a patriotic American. But man, criticize our current Prez for his lunatic foreign policy in Iraq, a policy based on generally-acknowledged lies and distortions carried out on a level not seen since Reagan and Bush in Iran, and Johnson in Vietnam, and oh my god, Michael Savage was right and these people are America-hating traitors.


  -  _Violating an oath to ones country_ - If the idea behind seccession was that each state was a soverign entity, then there was a higher duty to the state rather than the nation. This was not a Southern concept, as it was also accepted in the North-East as well.
  - _Lead a Rebellion_ - So you also condemn Washington?
  - _crucify black prisoners_ - Doesn't everyone? Why, I was just tellin Bubba at the weekly cross meeting, well I think it was Bubba, it's hard to tell with those hoods ya'know, that we should all head down to the ribshop and get us some, y'know? YeeHaw! (*Note, that was sarcasm. I find both crucification and racism to be disgusting.*)
  - _fight desperately to defend and to extend the institution of slavery_, - Um, no.  But they did have the right to defend themselves against invasion by a foriegn power.
  - _found the Ku Klux Klan_ - Please, why was it founded?
  - _invent Jim Crow_ - "Named after a popular 19th-century minstrel song that stereotyped African Americans, "Jim Crow" came to personify the system of government-sanctioned racial oppression and segregation in the United States. " These laws were often modeled after pre-civil war laws in use in the North. In fact, during and after the war laws were passed throughout the North to limit the migration and progress of the newly freed slaves.

  BTW: Interesting link on the history of Jim Crow, and the Klan : http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/segregation.html




> And here's another odd thing. None of these discussions about heroes ever center on anybody other than white Southern generals and politicians. Don't find 'em on this thread, don't find 'em on the cited websites. Just white generals who fought for the South. Huh.


  You obviously missed the part where I mentioned black Confederates.



> Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Twain, Thoreau, Emmett Till, Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney, and many others are better heroes. One doesn't need them to be white; one does't need them to be generals.


  My Gawd Robert, we are almost in agreement here.


  I'd like your comment on the following though:
http://www.lakelandgov.net/library/speccoll/exhibits/images/C386DD7C44CE4D34ADFE3171626CE29A.jpg
http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/unfinished_lincoln_memorial/images/klan_march.gif
http://www.impiousdigest.com/lbj/Klan_dc_march.jpg
http://www.pointsouth.com/graphics/people/kkk1925.jpg

 A brief search on Google's Image archive turned up these. I also turned up several with WWII German flags, and Confederate Battle Flags, but the majority (at least on the first few pages) were Ol' Glory.

 If the Confederate Flag(s) are a symbol of hate, and the German Flag is a symbol of hate, then what is the Stars and Stripes? It is a flag which flew proudly over the conquest and theft of at least 1 soverign nation from it's people, the racial internment of another people, and the attempted genocide of yet another. 

 I say neither the Confederate nor Union Flags are symbols of hatred, though despicable acts have been done in their name, and under their flight. The German flag is a different story.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 3, 2005)

Here's the difference:

The Confederate Flag stands now, as it always stood, for rebellion against the Union, a refusal of the Constitution's extension of freedom to everybody, for a history of white guys fighting to defend slavery, for an ugly history of racial segregation and lynching, for the Klan, and now--which is why it's nonsense--for white guys' blind attacks on historical changes that aren't the fault of the assorted people of color aand liberals they find it convenient to blame.

The "Stars and Stripes," for all the blood on that flag too, stands for the extension of liberty to all. Or are you attacking that notion? If so, we can agree that it's just cloth.

Think of it this way: holding the "Stainless Banner," (one doesn't care what they call it; that flag has a history of infamy), ya got Bedford Forrest. Holding the Stars and Stripes, Chamberlain.

Personally, one goes with the flag held by the college professor who left his safe, comfortable academic life and won the Medal of Honor defending this country and attacking slavery--over the war criminal who founded the Ku Klux Klan, anyway. 

If readers wonder why one keeps repeating the facts about Forrest, well, go back to the premises of this thread. Go back to all the places people have go one and on about the "Stainless Banner," and taken information from blatantly-racist websites (sorry, but anybody who builds a whole website around the premise that we need to put up a big monument honoring the FOUNDER OF THE KU KLUX KLAN is promoting blatant racism) as though 'twere gospel truth.

You want to put up a thread about what a murdering SOB George Armstong Custer was? About how, say, Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy collaborated with Hitler? Fine. No argument there. Want to argue for a faked history that legitimates writing guff like, "I'm a White American, and...." or arguing for, "white pride," as though it weren't a racist slogan, lots of argument.

There are far, far better ways to describe present situations, discuss one's problems with the present day, assess history, ground oneself in the past, discuss what America is, than this. 

The problem is, again, partly that the ugly likes of Hannity and Savage have taught people a spoiled, petulant and not-very-bright screaming child's approach to understanding their lives, their country, and their history.

That history, good and bad, is already there for you. See "Gangs of New York--" which for all its flaws, got that dead right.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2005)

Im finding something to agree about with each of you guys. People are selectively choosing their history and finding something to be proud of in their "background" while ignoring the monster in the corner. Isnt that we all do though? Even regarding or current administration? There is also a dynamic at work here that I dont think we can just brush off as a "dumb redneck" phenomena. Robert brought up some interesting points about the percieved disenfranchisement (sp?) of the white male. Regardless of the truth of that, there is obviously a division here as was obvious in the last election. Whats the solution? The screaming and stamping of feet (the literary version of which can be seen in some posts here) isnt going to get much accomplished. Telling people they are stupid racist idiots isnt going to accomplish much either. Should there be some sort of understanding, or just scorn?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 3, 2005)

Robertson said: That history, good and bad, is already there for you. See "Gangs of New York--" which for all its flaws, got that dead right. 
Book or movie?  The book was gawd-awful to slog through.  A real eye-opener, though.

As to finding scholarly sites for research, uh, some of us are no longer scholars and are a bit hamstrung when it comes to names further than Grant and Lee...  Seriously, the topic I requested your suggestions on is a rather obscure one for those of us outside the Ivory Tower.  I can sit with Google, which is really the only search engine I have any faith in, and it will give me tons of places to look, but I doubt that I can separate fact and fiction as well as you or Bob.  Hence my request for assistance.  [I also don't have the luxury of time.]  You two, as the experts, are the best source I have for direction.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 3, 2005)

Mr. Hubbard's probably more the expert...however, perhaps you should just go with the obvious choices: Commager and Catton maybe Shelby Foote on the Civil War with Matthew Brady's photos and Ken Burns' documentary (be sure to check out his bibliographies; they look very good indeed) for more visuals; "Eyes on the Prize," and Franklin's "Up From Slavery," (look too at the Duke University special collection started by Franklin; a lot is on-line) on racial issues before, during and after the War; something like Mary Chestnutt and Frederick Douglass for eyewitness accounts.
You should also beware of a lot of websites--just about anything with Nathan Bedford Forrest on the home page would be a good place to start avoiding, as would the myriad of sites espousing, "white pride," and how neato the Confederate Flag is. (One hint about websites: always look at their links, which may tell you very disturbing things about their close friends and associates.) Instead of wading through that claptrap, try the Library of Congress, and just do a Civil War search--they'll have a lot of the contemporary papers and letters, and who knows what else, so you can see for yourself. Or maybe the Gettysburg Historical Monument--National Park Service website, I imagine.

Hope that helps, and thanks for asking.

So why do you think people--especially white guys--suddenly seem to need this mythic South goofiness so badly? Or has there just been a continuous level of myth generated since the War?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 3, 2005)

To find the truth, one sometimes must crawl through some rather slimy areas.  Be it a racist website, or liberal collage, there is often truth in everything.

I think we're all adult enough to know that the "official" history is often not the 'whole' history.  We are taught from grade school that the Revolutionary war was fought to free us from a despot and unfair taxation, and we are taught that the Civil War was fought to free slaves.  Both are true, in their overly simplistic way.  Both also miss the bigger deeper truth of the full picture.  History is full of myths, and the winners often make the books.  If the Nazi's had won, history would record them differently.  If the South had been allowed to seccede without war, perhaps as happened elsewhere, slavery would have died out peacefully within 10-20 years, and we would have seen less hate crimes. 

Maybe, we wouldn't have gone through the Klan, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights marches of the 60's.  But, perhaps if all that had not happened, we wouldn't know the names Malcolm X, or Martin Luther King either?

Back to the dress....
- She made a dress
- It looked like a Confederate Battle Flag.
- The CBF is a symbol used by both proud southerners to reflect their herritage, and white supremist groups to reflect their bigoted and narrow viewpoints.

The decision was at the least tacky.
It may have been more, but unlike some, I cannot read minds, nor intent.

The fact that she attended the "Jefferson Davis Ball" means nothing.
Jefferson Davis was president of the Confederacy.  Many things in the South are named for him.
He was NOT a traitor as he was never tried, not was he found guilty after the war.

Robert, you insist these men were traitors.
Who was tried in courts of law, and who were found guilty of treason?
Certainly there was time for both, as Davis spent some time in Federal hands before being released, as did Lee, Longstreet, etc.
Will you answer this question, or will you sidestep it like you have som many others that don't reinforce your argument?


My sources....I've read a huge number of books since grade school on the Civil War and WWII.  Sadly, I own very few, but frequent the library which in WNY have an excellent number of biographies, etc.  I've avoided the politics of things in the past, prefering to study the tactics of the battles.  In any event, here is my sparce personal library list.  Most of my information I get from Google searches, and wading through obscure sites.  I rarely take any 1 site at face value, but look for multiple sites in agreement.  Yes, I've been to several hate-group sites.  Unlike Robert, I don't ignore sites because they don't fit the popularist view point. They do have nuggets of truth in there...buried in the filth.  One can usually see within a few minutes digging what agenda a site is pushing.  Be forewarned, some of them are very disturbing.

Book List:
American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War (R) (Hardcover)
by BRUCE CATTON

Ghosts of Gettysburg: Spirits, Apparitions and Haunted Places of the Battlefield (Paperback)
by Mark Nesbitt

If the South Won Gettysburg (Paperback)
by Mark V. Nesbitt

The Real Lincoln : A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Paperback)
by THOMAS DILORENZO 

Illustrated Atlas of the Civil War (Echoes of Glory Series)
by Time-Life Books

Portraits of the Civil War
by William C. Davis

Gettysburg: The Confederate High Tide
by Champ Clark

I also highly recommend:
http://dixieresearch.com/
http://www.scv.org/
http://suvcw.org/

The later 2 sites are the decendants of veterans of both sides, and have been recommended by both PBS and the History Chanel.  The first link is a historical site associated with the SCV.  

Good luck on the research.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 3, 2005)

Many thanks! You guys are the best.  artyon: 

What's in a name? I have an ex whose first two names were Jefferson Davis - and he was about as apolitical as anyone I've ever met. Family from the South? In a manner of speaking. They most of them work for Barnum & Bailey and live in the winter quarters in Florida. So, is he to be ostracized for carrying on the family name -- he's the IV, btw, and may have spawned V for all I know now. That's quite a name to carry for someone who could care less.

Okay - why I mentioned all that. Maybe, just maybe, this little girl could care less about politics and what the Confederate flag stands/stood for, and...

...simply thinks the dress looks cool. :xtrmshock


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 3, 2005)

Why should one be compelled to answer questions when one's own questions--for example, what exactly are the reasons for rummaging around in the Confederacy for justifications and support for one's own identity and though in the present--always go completely unanswered?

Skip the diatribes on Lincoln, is the best advice. Just read the Catton books; you'll find the same info, with very little attempt to excuse the South (or the North, for that matter), let alone explain away patently racist thought and behavior over the last 150 years.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Why should one be compelled to answer questions when one's own questions--for example, what exactly are the reasons for rummaging around in the Confederacy for justifications and support for one's own identity and though in the present--always go completely unanswered?


 My reasons, are just that, mine.  
 - I researched the battles because I fancy myself a tactican. 
 - I research the history because it interests me.
 - I research the past because I believe it points the way for the future.  Failure to remember leads to repeats of mistakes.
 - I don't need to use them for justifications.



> Skip the diatribes on Lincoln, is the best advice.


 Why?  Are you the only one allowed to tangent the esoteric?



> Just read the Catton books; you'll find the same info, with very little attempt to excuse the South (or the North, for that matter), let alone explain away patently racist thought and behavior over the last 150 years.


 "Just stick to the sanatized versions.  Anything else isn't politically correct."


 Robert,
   You claim that flag is racist, yet choose to excuse the misuse of the US flag, for the same purpose.  You are unwilling, or unable to explain or dispute the facts of black Confederate soldiers, proud black decendants, the lack of proof of any of the Confederate leadership being tried and convicted of treason, etc. 

 Here is 1 site with links to several articles about proud black Confederate soldiers and their heirs.  http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/theblackconfederatesoldier.htm  Please, take it with a grain of salt, and check their references. Several of these articles are from main-stream news sources.  These brave men deserve to be remembered and honored for the sacrifice they did in protection of their nation, the Confederate States of America.  They fought not to defend slavery, but for the same reason their fathers and grandfathers fought in the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War: To defend their homes, and to prove they were men. 

 "It has been estimated that *over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks*. Over 13,000 of these, saw the elephant also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, Will you fight? Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that biracial units were frequently organized by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, youve eliminated the history of the South. From http://www.missouridivision-scv.org/blackconfed.htm

 Sadly, this is what so many want.  To Eliminate the History of the South.
 For the last 100 years, a sanitation of history has been in progress. 

 The Battle Flag is as racist a symbol as the Cross, and Old Glory.  It is only as racist a symbol as the heart of the one standing by it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 4, 2005)

The words, "diatribes," and, "esoteric," are not synonyms.

There is nothing at all esoteric about this poor, picked-upon South claptrap--or if there is, it's something esoteric that people have been complaining and complaining and complaining about in the loudest and most-public terms since about five minutes after the Civil War ended. It was the justification for the Klan (you know--that esoteric, unknown group that the Southern war criminal NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST started?), for the Jim Crow laws, for a century of lynchings, for the bitter opposition to civil rights, etc. 

One has been hearing this guff for what--fifty years? It's on website after website, in book after book. It's been the stock in trade of every racist Southern politician from Forrest, to Huey Long, to Lester Maddox and George Courtney Wallace and Strom Thurmond on into that much-vaunted future we keep hearing about. How obscure can it be?
Finding Catton's and Commager's books "sanitized," is absurd, considering that every single claim against Lincoln and the North and in favor of Lee and the South can be found in their writings. It's where most of us ran into them for the first time, as has been mentioned innumerable times on this thread. What'd they do wrong--note that the Klan has been a racist organization right from the start?

And precisely who is it who's been arguing for sanitizing anybody's history? Please provide documentation and exact quotes: otherwise, this looks like just another claim in the exceedingly long history of white guys complaining that nobody gives them a fair deal--a history, it seems, well into the process of being employed to justify this country's current loonbox colonialism abroad and current repressive religiosity at home.

One still wants to know why one's heroes have to be white Southern generals all the time. Reminiscent of those reincarnation folks who claim that ALL their past selves were kings and queens and Shakespeare...with the added nasty twist that somehow, NONE of these guys ever seem to take any pride in girls, or in them darkies...NONE of these sites are militating for a monument to, say, the black Confederate troops, right next to the "Stainless Banner." NONE of them are praising, say, Nat Turner and John Brown and Mark Twain. NONE of them are bragging about the Underground Railroad....

Nope. It's only the white politicans and generals who helped start the War and carried it on as bitterly as they could who seem to need apply to be heroes. It's all an endless litany of How Picked On We Are By Them. 

Hm. Why is that?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The words, "diatribes," and, "esoteric," are not synonyms.


 Thank you for the gramma lesson.



> There is nothing at all esoteric about this poor, picked-upon South claptrap--or if there is, it's something esoteric that people have been complaining and complaining and complaining about in the loudest and most-public terms since about five minutes after the Civil War ended. It was the justification for the Klan (you know--that esoteric, unknown group that the Southern war criminal NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST started?), for the Jim Crow laws, for a century of lynchings, for the bitter opposition to civil rights, etc.


 - Please indicate where Forrest (or any Confederate leader or general) was tried and convicted as a war criminal, or traitor.  You can't because, they never were.
 - Also, according to PBS, the Klan was started by 6 individuals, and Forrest was shortly thereafter recruited into it's leadership...They imply he was not the founder.
 - Jim Crow laws were imposed by Federal govenours on the conquered South and were based on existing laws in the North.
 - Civil Rights were a mess through out the country, not just the South.



> One has been hearing this guff for what--fifty years? It's on website after website, in book after book. It's been the stock in trade of every racist Southern politician from Forrest, to Huey Long, to Lester Maddox and George Courtney Wallace and Strom Thurmond on into that much-vaunted future we keep hearing about. How obscure can it be?


 You call it guff, but to thousands of others it's long buried truth.  Why do some of the biggest 'white power' nuts in this country wave the US flag, and scream the 'america for white' crap?  Racists come in all forms Robert, accept it, move on, and stop using the South as a scapegoat for everything evil and racist.  Racism existed before the Colonies were even founded.



> Finding Catton's and Commager's books "sanitized," is absurd, considering that every single claim against Lincoln and the North and in favor of Lee and the South can be found in their writings. It's where most of us ran into them for the first time, as has been mentioned innumerable times on this thread. What'd they do wrong--note that the Klan has been a racist organization right from the start?


 I don't know.  Despite my own recent research I am not as familiar with the Klan, it's history or it's purpose as you sir.



> And precisely who is it who's been arguing for sanitizing anybody's history? Please provide documentation and exact quotes: otherwise, this looks like just another claim in the exceedingly long history of white guys complaining that nobody gives them a fair deal--a history, it seems, well into the process of being employed to justify this country's current loonbox colonialism abroad and current repressive religiosity at home.


 Unlike you sir, I can provide answers to questions.  One of these sources is of some importance, as it is from a site dedicated to black history.

 =====
 Sigh..."The Sanitation of History"

 ====
Black Confederates. Why havent we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, I dont want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910 Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a cover-up which started back in 1865.

http://www.missouridivision-scv.org/blackconfed.htm

One of the more famous black Confederate veterans was John F. Harris, a Mississippian. John served in the Mississippi House of Representatives in 1890, and was present when a resolution was voted on to erect a Confederate Monument to the soldiers of Mississippi. Several blacks opposed the resolution, but John Harris rose and spoke in its defense: "When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed in, and they made no requests for monuments... But they died, and their virtues would be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I, too, wore the gray, the same color as my master wore. We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now, I would have been there yet... I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions".6 After his speech, six other blacks joined John and voted for the funding of the monument.

 THE TIMES - PICAYUNE, B-6, Feb. 21, 1996

Efforts by black Confederate soldiers' descendants to piggy-back the July 19 African American Civil War Monument dedication were squelched. According to a press release from the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization that honors the rebels' cause, one of their members, Dr. Emerson Emory, a black Dallas physician, was invited to participate in the ceremony in April and dropped from the program in May. Apparently, the African American Civil War Monument Committee saw any recognition of those who fought for the losing side as an embrace of the Confederacy's ideals.

http://www.abouttimemag.com/nov98story2.html
 (Note - see also http://www.scv.org/press/scvpr05.htm)

On April 23, 1998, the Foundations Project Director, Lyndia Grant advised Dr. Emory that the Foundation would allow Dr. Emory to participate in the program. On May 20, 1998, the invitation was revoked when he was told he could not participate by the Foundations Chief Historian, Walter B. Hill, Jr., According to Hill, the Foundation, "does not share and believe in the traditions and symbolism of the Confederate States of America."

 Regardless, Dr. Emory plans to attend the ceremonies, wreath in hand. Dr Emory said that he would place the wreath sometime during the three-day ceremonies. "I will put the wreath out, even if I have to do it in the middle of the night," Dr. Emory said. He explained that he feels that the wreath should be placed, "as a fitting tribute by one group of military troops honoring the other." "I dont feel that it is derogatory for Southern troops to honor the African American troops," Dr. Emory said.

http://www.scv.org/press/scvpr05.htm
 ====

 Is that enough sir, or shall I provide more?  



> One still wants to know why one's heroes have to be white Southern generals all the time.


 No, my heros aren't all white.  I grew up on jwish and black comedians, and have great admiration for a Dr. Bill Cosby. You may have heard of him, as he has recently been taken to task for saying some of the same things I've said in the past.  Militarilly, my heros were Longstreet and Patton, though Custer was on that list until I did some research into him and his life and found him to be little more than a JEB Stuart wannabe.



> Reminiscent of those reincarnation folks who claim that ALL their past selves were kings and queens and Shakespeare...with the added nasty twist that somehow, NONE of these guys ever seem to take any pride in girls, or in them darkies...NONE of these sites are militating for a monument to, say, the black Confederate troops, right next to the "Stainless Banner." NONE of them are praising, say, Nat Turner and John Brown and Mark Twain. NONE of them are bragging about the Underground Railroad....


 The Underground Railroad....in 40 years Northern abolitionists helped about 75,000 slaves reach freedom.  Of course, that must be discounted by the 74,000 new slaves imported annually by New England shippers, as well as the number of free--blacks in the North who were kidnapped and sold into slavery as well....



> Nope. It's only the white politicans and generals who helped start the War and carried it on as bitterly as they could who seem to need apply to be heroes. It's all an endless litany of How Picked On We Are By Them.
> 
> Hm. Why is that?


 Because, some individuals have been hoodwinked into believing that the issues are simple black/white, when they are in fact not.  If there be black heros (and there are, hundreds of them, waiting to be discovered) then let us build them monuments under both flags.  This sanitation, this simplification if you will, does neither them nor us any good, but it is imposed by closed minded individuals of all colors.  In my research, the worst, most racist insistance that my data is wrong comes from racist sites...the same sources you sir condemn.


 "*The     first     military     monument     in     the     US     Capitol     that     honors     an     African-American     soldier     is     the     Confederate     monument     at     Arlington     National     cemetery.     The     monument     was     designed     1914     by     Moses     Ezekiel,     a     Jewish     Confederate.     Who     wanted     to     correctly     portray     the     racial     makeup     in     the     Confederate     Army.     A     black     Confederate     soldier     is     depicted     marching     in     step     with     white     Confederate     soldiers.     Also     shown     is     one     white     soldier     giving     his     child     to     a     black     woman     for     protection.-     source:     Edward     Smith,     African     American     professor     at     the     American     University,     Washington     DC."*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 4, 2005)

Please provide clear, convincing, direct evidence--not a claim, evidence--for the thesis that the history of the South has been systematically suppressed in some fashion.

This claim--not evidence, but claim--has been a prominent part of every race-baiting politician in the South or in a border state for the last 140-odd years. The claims about the heroism of the South and the dedication of its soldiers have been reiterated over and over and over again, publicly, loudly, for the last 140-odd years. It's a bit hard to understand how there can be a conspiracy to suppress what's been repeatedly, loudly, publicly, claimed for the last 140 years or so.

The myth of the poor abused white man has played its ugly part across the same history. Currently, it manifests as legitimation for attacks of various kinds on liberals, minorities and immigrants. 

As for the claim that us Nawthern lib'rals don't know nothin' 'bout the troubles the South done seen, and we don't admit that the Nawth has had its little racist moments, this writer can only suggest that you actually read the sixty-twelve times he has noted such embarassments as the fact that states like Connecticut have at one time enjoyed the largest Klan membership in the country. He might also note--as he has elsewhere on this thread--spent a lot of happy childhood time on Antietam Creek, big and little, the Shenandoah, the Potomac, in an area where, "Save your Dixie cups, the South shall rise again," was part of everyday conversation. Apparently such writing needs to be erased to perpetuate the mythology of simple-minded Northern oppression.

One realizes that Forrest was never tried. One simply jumps to the no-doubt liberal, unfair, biased conclusion that generals who have 180 or so POWs crucified because they are black can reasonably be classified as war criminals. Additionally, Wikipedia seems to think that Forrest founded the Klan (no doubt more of that bias); one cannot quite see how a claim that no, he wasn't the Klan's Adolph Hitler but only its Rudolph Hess lets anybody off the moral hook.

If we're going to get into the sanitization of history, try reading Werner Sollors' collection, "The Invention of Ethnicity," which discusses the modern  development of the concepts of ethnicity and race which, despite the claims about their being somehow eternal, actually happen to be pretty much modern inventions, in their present forms anyway. You may find Judith Stein's, "Defining the Race, 1890-1930," particularly helpful, not merely for its analysis of the complexity of that invention, but for her remarks on the extent to which, "the North was complicitous," in the development of Jim Crow. 

Also particularly instructive in that same volume are Ishmael Reed's comments upon the extraordinary complexity of apparently-simple terms we take for granted, such as, "black." He points out that, "Blacks have difficulty defining the multi-ethnicity of their heritage because such a claim renders millions of people less, 'white.'" (227)

However, this book--which was approximately two-and-a-half feet from my right hand--must represent another example of that sanitizing of history and repression of the South...uh, it'll take a while to figure out how.

The real offense of that stupid flag, of Forrest, of the "Friends of Forrest," etc. is that they represent a desperate attempt not at sanitizing history, but at white-washing it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Please provide clear, convincing, direct evidence--not a claim, evidence--for the thesis that the history of the South has been systematically suppressed in some fashion.


 At least 1 of my sources is a leading magazine for the African-American community, which covered some of these issues in 1998.  If you want first hand information, I don't have any.  I do have references to historians, newspaper articles, and the writings of those who have however.



> This claim--not evidence, but claim--has been a prominent part of every race-baiting politician in the South or in a border state for the last 140-odd years. The claims about the heroism of the South and the dedication of its soldiers have been reiterated over and over and over again, publicly, loudly, for the last 140-odd years. It's a bit hard to understand how there can be a conspiracy to suppress what's been repeatedly, loudly, publicly, claimed for the last 140 years or so.


 There has been an ongoing attempt since the end of the war to hide the truth.  Each attempt to ignore or bury the Black contribution to the Confederacy, given willingly, not coerced is an insult to their memory.  Each attempt to remove statuary, flags, symbols, etc, is an attempt to bury a past in which many find all too embarasing truths.



> The myth of the poor abused white man has played its ugly part across the same history. Currently, it manifests as legitimation for attacks of various kinds on liberals, minorities and immigrants.


 Right.  And quota systems don't exist. Government grants exist for "white males", just like they do for "black", "asian", "female" and "minority".



> As for the claim that us Nawthern lib'rals don't know nothin' 'bout the troubles the South done seen, and we don't admit that the Nawth has had its little racist moments, this writer can only suggest that you actually read the sixty-twelve times he has noted such embarassments as the fact that states like Connecticut have at one time enjoyed the largest Klan membership in the country. He might also note--as he has elsewhere on this thread--spent a lot of happy childhood time on Antietam Creek, big and little, the Shenandoah, the Potomac, in an area where, "Save your Dixie cups, the South shall rise again," was part of everyday conversation. Apparently such writing needs to be erased to perpetuate the mythology of simple-minded Northern oppression.


 I did read it.  Much of it wasn't applicable to the discussion at hand.



> One realizes that Forrest was never tried. One simply jumps to the no-doubt liberal, unfair, biased conclusion that generals who have 180 or so POWs crucified because they are black can reasonably be classified as war criminals.


 So, since you believe that Forrest was a war criminal for his involvement at Ft. Pillow, what is your opinion of Sherman?  Forrests men cruicified black and white POWs.  Shermans men waged war on civilians, black and white, and raped, robbed and murdered thousands of women and children. Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did. But in war the victors always write the history and are never punished for war crimes, no matter how heinous. Only the defeated suffer that fate.



> Additionally, Wikipedia seems to think that Forrest founded the Klan (no doubt more of that bias); one cannot quite see how a claim that no, he wasn't the Klan's Adolph Hitler but only its Rudolph Hess lets anybody off the moral hook.


 You refer to Wikipedia often, yet it's own creators have been heard to lament it's lack of reliability.
 "Robert McHenry, former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in an article titled "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia," recently took Wikipedia  to task for its lack of reliability."
 and
 "Larry Sanger (cofounder) - First, Wikipedia is, at present, of uneven reliability."
 Sources: 
  slashdot.org http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/03/144207&tid=95&tid=1 (contains comments of the problems with Wiki by its contributors)
http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/sanger3/wikipedia_statement.htm


 Regarding this whole fixation of yours on Forrest and the Klan....
http://www.civilwarhome.com/natbio.htm
 "When Forrest captured Fort Pillow a controversy developed over reports of a massacre of the largely black garrison. Apparently a massacre did occur there are numerous Confederate firsthand accounts of it......Joining the Ku Klux Klan shortly after the war, he was apparently one of its early leaders."

 The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.  2001.
 Klan - http://www.bartleby.com/65/ku/KuKluxKl.html
 Forrest - http://www.bartleby.com/65/fo/ForrestN.html

 Essay on the Fort Pillow Attack : http://allfreeessays.com/student/Fort_Pillow_Attack.html

 I did try to check Encarta and Encyclopedia Brittanica, however both require paid membership I don't currently have.  I did also find several sites that contradict much of the above, and a few references to some books which I will check out when I can. I do not seek to 'clear', 'white-wash', or otherwise 'worship' Forrest, or any other person.  I do however seek to understand them, their time, and reasoning.  I do not condone nor forgive the actions of the Klan, or their ilk...but I do understand it.  And, I pity those whose hearts are that cold, and narrow.



> The real offense of that stupid flag, of Forrest, of the "Friends of Forrest," etc. is that they represent a desperate attempt not at sanitizing history, but at white-washing it.


 Sanitizing, and whitewashing is not seeking the truth, it is overly simplifying and dumbing things down.  It is uneducated, generic statements like "that flags racist", "saintly Lee", "Civil war about Slavery", "Southern Pride is racist", etc.  That sort of drivel is simply put, garbage.

 To say the Civil War was only about Slavery, is to say WW2 was only about Pearl Harbor, or WWI was only about the assassination of the ArchDuke.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 5, 2005)

Since this discussion was in part about the status of the Confederate Battle flag as a hate symbol, I've done additional digging.

 I was curious...since the flag is claimed to be a symbol of hatred against a particular ethnic group, what do members of that group think of it?  I've found numerous individuals, doctors, lawyers, college professors, all proud of their herritage, and all black.  While I've never heard or found any Jews who would wear an SS uniform, and wave a Nazi banner, there appear to be a number of African Americans who will proudly wear the grey, and wave that red banner.  Obviously, they "Get It".

 The following quotes may offend.  My apologies in advance.

 ===========

 "Whenever I hear a black person talk about this flag issue, I ask them the same questions. Do you know how long that flag has been flying over those state capitals? Havent you seen them there before? The answer from most blacks I talk to out west is, who cares? Not good enough for the National Association for the Advancement of Career Politicians (NAACP). Not good enough for these modern-day Plantation Pimps who cant find any other juvenile criminals to fight for so now they retaliate by dissing a great hunk of American culture. This is ONLY being done to pander to black voters this political season. You see, back in 1992, folks just decided to burn down Los Angeles while liberal politicians mailed gasoline to the rioters. This time, lets burn down a heritage instead. 

 I hope some black person is reading this right now and fuming. You should be. If you think the Confederate flag is insulting to you, you are being used, or as we say it in the hood, you bein played  for a fool. By who? Not by those evil conservatives, but by the liberal white man. The ones wholl take your votes, then tell you youre not good enough to make it on your own.But there is no sense giving you the same argument many of the Southern Ladies and Gentleman are trying to give now. You dont want to hear them, anyway.  "
 - J.J.Johnson:  Editor-n-Chief www.SierraTimes.com (1999)
http://www.dixiecom.com/blackneo.htm

 ====

 "The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. flag?

 Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who are attacking the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression. They don't deserve the dishonour ."
*By Walter Williams
*http://www.dixiecom.com/blackneo.htm
http://www.lizmichael.com/blkconfd.htm


 ====

 "Information can be a powerful tool, especially in the hands of a mean-spirited segment of our society.

 These ill-tempered louts use information as an instrument of intolerance for their public campaign of loathing and detestation.

 Most recently, these hate-mongers have become engaged in a concerted effort to remove the Confederate battle symbol from the canton corner of the Mississippi flag - while besmirching the image of Southerners who fought and died for the Confederate cause in the War Between the States.

 Tear down the red rag and burn it, these anti-flag zealots have shouted across Mississippi and the nation.

 In their fervor to repeal history, they would ignore the valiant efforts of the more than 80,000 blacks who donned the gray uniforms of the Confederacy."
 - Donald V. Adderton - Donald V. Adderton is editor of the Delta Democrat Times. 
http://www.dixiecom.com/blakneo2.htm

 =====

 Newspaper article: http://www.dixiecom.com/anthony1.gif

 =====

"Black Confederate activist H.K. Edgerton will begin a 160 mile march, carrying a Confederate flag, from Littleton, North Carolina to Richmond, Virginia starting on Monday May 17. Edgerton the veteran of a 1600 mile March across Dixie and a recently completed 260 mile march to attend the Hunley funeral. Edgerton who is the immediate past President of the Asheville, NC NAACP feels driven to march.

"In Richmond, Virginia the DuPont Company has banned Confederate symbols from their plant and have ignored requests to honor Confederate soldiers buried on their property, and this in the former Capital City of the Confederate States of America," explained Edgerton. "DuPont employees have been staging a weekly vigil in front of the plant for the past 4 years that has been completely blacked out of the media - I intend to change that,"
                                   Edgerton added."
 - http://www.slrc-csa.org/pr/2004/pr05-16-2004.htm



 ======
*"Black Confederate Protests DuPont* *Former NAACP branch President, H.K. Edgerton* will travel on Thursday, October 30, to Richmond, Virginia to* support a Confederate Southern American* vigil in front of the DuPont Spruance plant due to the plant's banning of Confederate symbols.

The protest vigil has been ongoing for 3 years.

The SLRC's chief trial counsel, Kirk D. Lyons, recently filed a discrimination lawsuit against DuPont on behalf of seven (7) SCV member DuPont employees for the banning of Confederate symbols, alleging discrimination based on race, religion and national origin as Confederate Southern Americans.

"DuPont has claimed in a Motion filed with the court that it is a fact that the Confederate flag is disruptive in the workplace because it is offensive to African Americans, said Edgerton. "I will be carrying my Confederate flag in front of the DuPont plant to prove that their assertion is a bald faced lie," Edgton concluded."
 - http://www.slrc-csa.org/pr/2003/pr10-29-2003.htm


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2005)

Mr. Hubbard, the websites you're citing are at best dubious.

No, not because they disagree. They are dubious and untrustworthy because the "Sierra Times," which does not list its authors, explains that it is a Western organization dedicated to, "land-use," rights--translation being, it's a "wise use," website put up by ranchers and developers who oppose any and all environmental and zoning legislations, and who wish to tear up the countryside as they choose and damn the consequences. 

The, "SLRC," or whatever, based in Black Mountain, Georgia, is a group entirely made up of middle-aged white guys, with the exception of their one-member Board of Advisors--the member being the same D.K. Edgerton who's been making these pilgrimages in Confederate uniform complete with large flag. Their website also contains running attacks on people who are worth a helluva lot more to this country, for example the Southern Poverty Law Center and Morris Dees, as well as repeated assertions that, "black and white liberals and the NAACP," cause all the racial unrest and problems in this country at present.

However, both sites beautifully illustrate this writer's original proposition: that the claim of persecution, the claim that it is time to resurrect the "Stainless Banner," the claim that why no, perish forbid, the South never fought for slavery, are intimately tied to a) white men upset about their changed places in the world, b) white men upset about historical developments, c) white men upset about their responsibilities to other human beings--for example, their responsibility not to strip-mine the world and put up shopping malls on the tailings.

Of your previous citations, the "freessays.com," or whatever, essay is a student essay posted on a website providing cheat sheets for college students in need of plagiarized essays. If you will quickly look at its bibliography, you will note that a) there is no up-to-date scholarship cited from authors of the last forty years other than, b) the only recent citation is from another of those Nathan Bedford Forrest (Klan founder...remember him?) Was A Great Guy hagiographies, c) none of the standard authorities are cited at all.

These are not reliable witnesses and authorities. 

A reader of Sollors' anthology, already cited, will find far-better scholarship and documentation on every page. 

Catton's books are generally-available, far more solid scholarly works that--not incidentally--provide far better support for your arguments. If you will simply look at, say, his "Terrible Swift Sword," (Doubleday & Co, Garden City, N.J., 1963), you will find that pages 1-2--that's the first two pages, for Pete's sake--discuss the way that the Congress explicitly limited the scope of the War to preserving the Union for the first year, and basically told the Abolitionists to get stuffed. This is a volume which closes, furthermore, by explicitly dicussing the opportunistic politics of the Emancipation Proclamation. 
It remains unclear why anyone would avoid using such easily-available, reliable sources to make their case--unless, of course, the fact that Catton's books have been perhaps the best selling and most influential works on the Civil War of the last forty-odd years is utterly contradictory of the notion that the reality of the War has been suppressed altogether by Nawthern lib'rals.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 5, 2005)

Ok, but what about all the others?
 What about "About...Time Magazine" for example? Or Walter Williams? Many of those quotes are archived on many sites. I've tried to locate the writers 'home' site, but....thats often less intuitive than I'd personally prefer.  Also, everyone of those quotes is atributed to an African American...are they wrong, lying, misquoted, or ficticious?

 I will gladly discount a few sites...as a web designer I know how east it is for someone to build a site, and promote a concept. But it is very hard to discount them all.

I don't deny that those flags have been, and continue to be used in hateful and loathsome manners. But, so have so many other symbols.

 I found this on another site...it sums up some of my thoughts.  I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but, it makes sense to me, you know?

 ""*Isn't the Confederate flag a racist symbol?*

 No, it is not a racist symbol. It wasn't in the past nor is it now. As a matter of fact the United States flag is tainted more with racism than the Confederate ever could be. It is true that some racists use the flag, but does that make it a symbol of hate? Why is it that when the U.S. flag is used by hate groups no one says a word? But the moment they display a Confederate flag everyone screams "see, look I told you that flag is a flag of hate". I think it basically boils down to the fact that those who hate our Southern banners do so because they hate the South.

 To illustrate a point let's look at the Cuban flag. Is it a flag of Communism or Freedom? Fidel Castro and his regime have been using it for over forty years, they wave and display it at all of their Communist rallies and parades, it flies over the prisons where freedom loving citizens are tortued and murdered, it's the national flag of a Communist country, but is it a flag of oppression and slavery?

 You better not go to Miami and say that to the Cuban exiles. If you ask them what the Cuban flag stands for they'll tell you it stands for Freedom, Democracy and Pride. Do the Communist Cubans use it as a symbol of Pride? Absolutely. The Communists and the Freedom lovers both see the Cuban flag as a symbol of their Land, Culture, History and Heritage.

 You can no longer ask the Cuban exile to abandon the use of their flag because the Communists use it any more than you can ask a decent Southerner to abandon the use of the Confederate flag because Racists use it.

 I can't think of anything that would make the Ku Klux Klan and other Racists more angry than if Black Southerners started using and displaying the Confederate flag, the flag of the South."     "


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 5, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Why is it that when the U.S. flag is used by hate groups no one says a word? But the moment they display a Confederate flag everyone screams "see, look I told you that flag is a flag of hate". I think it basically boils down to the fact that those who hate our Southern banners do so because they hate the South.



Actually, it's because the Confederate flag was the flag of a nation that was founded by and large because of the institution of slavery; there are many other legacies involved with the American flag.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> To illustrate a point let's look at the Cuban flag. Is it a flag of Communism or Freedom?



The Cuban flag predates the Castro movement, and thus has a great deal of meaning to anti-Castro activists.  The Confederate flag was not merely attached to later in its life by racists, but it was the symbol of a nation that was founded on the practice of slavery and the extension of slavery, and as such, its symbol is abhorrent.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 5, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Actually, it's because the Confederate flag was the flag of a nation that was founded by and large because of the institution of slavery; there are many other legacies involved with the American flag.


One thing to remember too about the issue of the NORTH/SOUTH debate over slavery wasn't as much a racial issue as it was economic.

The South had access to cheap labor and therefore felt no need to participate as actively in the industrialization/technologicalization of the United States.

The North, as well as being against slavery as a humanitarian issue (more about 'what we look like to the world' than 'how evil it is to keep slaves'), was trying to break the back of the "New Aristocracy" that the Southern Politiques/Plantation owners were promoting.  It was, in the eyes of progressives, an economically based classism similiar to royalty that stung the National mentallity of equallity that was growing.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 5, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Actually, it's because the Confederate flag was the flag of a nation that was founded by and large because of the institution of slavery; there are many other legacies involved with the American flag.


 So was the United States.  At the time of the Revolutionary war, all 13 colonies, later States, were slave holders.  This country, or at least the original 13 member nations forming the Union were all slave states.  I believe the first to specifically outlaw slavery was Massachussetes, though it continued for several years as they sold off their slaves to other states.

 The flag that flew over the slave traders was not any of the Confederate flags, but the US flag.  The importation of slaves was illegal under the Confederate Constitution.  The southern states had wanted this clause added to the US Constitution prior to 1800 but pressure from NE shippers pushed this back to I believe 1808. 

 ===
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. 

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.


 Full Text: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm
 ===




> The Cuban flag predates the Castro movement, and thus has a great deal of meaning to anti-Castro activists. The Confederate flag was not merely attached to later in its life by racists, but it was the symbol of a nation that was founded on the practice of slavery and the extension of slavery, and as such, its symbol is abhorrent.


 So, what about the flag of Saudi Arabia?  Slavery did not end there until the 1960's?  As to the later part of your statement, please see above.  

 If the Confederate flag is the flag of a nation founded upon slavery (which it is, in a manner), so was the United States flag.


 One other side bar - 
 Robert E Lee freed his slaves prior to the start of the war.
 Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson owned no slaves.
 U.S. Grant freed his slaves -after- the war...because "Good help is so hard to find".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 5, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> One thing to remember too about the issue of the NORTH/SOUTH debate over slavery wasn't as much a racial issue as it was economic.


 Thats what I've been saying.   



> The South had access to cheap labor and therefore felt no need to participate as actively in the industrialization/technologicalization of the United States.


 Not completely accurate.  The main points of industrialization were in the North, but were slowly expanding into the South.  If hostilities had not broken out for another 20 years, the 'neutral' border states would probably been much closer to 'free' states, if not actually free, with the next 'belt' having migrated towards 'neutral'.  With the technological advances that were made in the mid 1880's, the economics of slavery were rapidly expiring.  This is seen in nations like Brazil, which had a much larger slave population, but achieved freedom without a costly civil war.



> The North, as well as being against slavery as a humanitarian issue (more about 'what we look like to the world' than 'how evil it is to keep slaves'), was trying to break the back of the "New Aristocracy" that the Southern Politiques/Plantation owners were promoting. It was, in the eyes of progressives, an economically based classism similiar to royalty that stung the National mentallity of equallity that was growing.


 It was less a 'humanitarian' or PR thing, than a overall 'white' thing.  In the North, free blacks would work for less than free whites.  This pissed off the free whites and caused tension.  The common feeling was that blacks were inferior to whites, which is a key part of the race tensions.  Whites resented Blacks working for less...a similar problem occured when the Irish migrated to the US.  Few were as forward thinking as Joshua Chamberlin who seems to have truely believed "all men are equal".  Many, such as Lincoln, wanted to ship the blacks out...back to africa, haiti, it didn't matter.  Anywhere but here.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 6, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Thats what I've been saying.
> 
> 
> 1.  Not completely accurate. The main points of industrialization were in the North, but were slowly expanding into the South. If hostilities had not broken out for another 20 years, the 'neutral' border states would probably been much closer to 'free' states, if not actually free, with the next 'belt' having migrated towards 'neutral'. With the technological advances that were made in the mid 1880's, the economics of slavery were rapidly expiring. This is seen in nations like Brazil, which had a much larger slave population, but achieved freedom without a costly civil war.
> ...


1.  At the point when the war broke out, the southern political/business mentallity was based on the farming culture of the plantation.  The truth may be that the trend, if allowed to go on without war, would have happend slower but as a 'natural evolution' in terms of commerce but that doesn't change the idea that the 'southern perspective' was very much in favor of the Plantation model (which looked a heck of a lot like a feudal/aristocratic model - what the Northerners were against for many reasons - some of which were political ideology).  I do agree that given time, slavery would have become too expensive to maintain compared to the technology options that would have become available over time.

2.  Agreed, that was along the lines of my point.  THere were humanitarian minded people circulating pamphlets, speaking about the ethics of slavery but the majority of people - who did less talking because it was such a common idea - were 'racist' because blacks were generally viewed as less than whites...but not 'low' enough to be treated like property per se.

To judge people of a different time by our standards is basically unfair and creates a VERY subjective view of what they were and were not.

How will the standards/ethics of future generations 'judge' our obsession with diggin up every little piece of dirt on celebrities, historical figures, politicians...?  Or our obvious obsession with female sexuallity/sex appeal?  

A more 'zen' view may make it easier to make objective observations of people within their historical contexts.  That was then, this is now.

THere were 'free' and free blacks that passionately supported the Southern side of the Civil War.  I don't know much about the why's and wherefores' but they did.  One theory was that the blacks of the time knew (and may have agreed) with the white superiority view relative to blacks and figured that staying under the protection of slave owners in the south was better than having no protection at all from the racist views that you mention in terms of education, wages and such.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 6, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> It was, in the eyes of progressives, an economically based classism similiar to royalty that stung the National mentallity of equallity that was growing.



There were also far darker motives; to the capitalists of the North, what better why to cripple your competititors in the South with access to cheap labor than by eliminating their entire economic base.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 6, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> So was the United States.  At the time of the Revolutionary war, all 13 colonies, later States, were slave holders.



You're missing the point, however; the United States didn't go to war with England over the right to have slaves.  The CSA seceded from the USA over the social, political, and economic ramifications of the abhorrent practice of slavery, including extending slavery to the new territories to the west.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> So, what about the flag of Saudi Arabia?  Slavery did not end there until the 1960's?



What about the flag of Saudi Arabia?  We're talking about American states and the behavior of Americans here... throwing up the behavior of foreigners is simply a straw man argument.  Again, the Saudi state was not founded on the principle of slavery -- in fact, the complexities involved in the founding of the various Arab states during the age of imperialism make them incomparable to the USA and CSA for your arguments.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 6, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> There were also far darker motives; to the capitalists of the North, what better why to cripple your competititors in the South with access to cheap labor than by eliminating their entire economic base.


You got it!  As the Japanese are more recently credited for saying "Business is WAR."

It always has been, and war has always been a source/form of generating business as well - all the way down to the battlefield scavangers that pick over the dead for gold fillings, coins, clothing, equiptment...and then basically have a yard sale to earn a living.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 6, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> What about the flag of Saudi Arabia? We're talking about American states and the behavior of Americans here... throwing up the behavior of foreigners is simply a straw man argument. Again, the Saudi state was not founded on the principle of slavery -- in fact, the complexities involved in the founding of the various Arab states during the age of imperialism make them incomparable to the USA and CSA for your arguments.


I don't think it is such a far fetched comparison to make it a straw man.

THe point is that flags have meaning and connotations.  The Johnny Reb, The Stars and Stripes, Saudi Flag, Israeli flag.....all are symbols to someone.  

I would say that the Saudi Flag may not have been founded on slavery as we define it in the states, but there are historical nuances that could make it a negative symbol to someone.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> There were also far darker motives; to the capitalists of the North, what better why to cripple your competititors in the South with access to cheap labor than by eliminating their entire economic base.


 This is part of what I've been saying.
When the South secceeded, they made their ports Free-Ports...  as in Free-Trade.
The North had import tarriffs on goods, sometimes excessively high.
This was one of the reasons for the seccession, as goods shipped to Georgia from Maine were hit with the same tarriffs.
After the South went free-trade, shipping started to shift to the South, which is a major part of the reason for the illegal (by terms of international treatys signed by the US) blockade of the southern ports.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> You're missing the point, however; the United States didn't go to war with England over the right to have slaves. The CSA seceded from the USA over the social, political, and economic ramifications of the abhorrent practice of slavery, including extending slavery to the new territories to the west.


 
 Not quite right.  One (of several) of the grievances of the colonies with England was the Kings refusal to order his appointed governors to halt the importation of slaves from Africa.

  " Elected to the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, Jefferson was appointed on June 11, 1776, to head a committee of five in preparing the Declaration of Independence. He was its primary author, although his initial draft was amended after consultation with Benjamin Franklin and John Adams and altered both stylistically and substantively by Congress. Jefferson's reference to the voluntary allegiance of colonists to the crown was struck; *also deleted was a clause that censured the monarchy for imposing slavery upon America.*"  http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/tjefferson.html
 (Note: I had a better reference but can't locate at the moment.  More info on that is at http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jefferson.htm



> What about the flag of Saudi Arabia? We're talking about American states and the behavior of Americans here... throwing up the behavior of foreigners is simply a straw man argument. Again, the Saudi state was not founded on the principle of slavery -- in fact, the complexities involved in the founding of the various Arab states during the age of imperialism make them incomparable to the USA and CSA for your arguments.


 If the argument is that the Confederate flags = slavery (in a nation that only existed for 4-5 years) then the Saudi flag also = slavery for it existed in that nation until only 40-50 years ago.   

  If we are arguing a flag=offensive, then we must also accept that the Israeli flag is a symbol of oppression to Palestinians.

  You argue that the Confederacy was founded on the principle of slavery.
  I argue it was founded on the right for a state, not the 'federal' to determine what is/is not legal and right.
  Robert argues that it was all about the slaves.
 I argue it was about the federal government not obeying and enforcing it's own laws....laws which deemed slaves property, and that they should be returned to their owners. 

 Please note, I am not saying those laws were right/just/etc.  Just that they were the law, and they weren't being enforced, nor had they been struck down through the proper methods.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I don't think it is such a far fetched comparison to make it a straw man.
> 
> THe point is that flags have meaning and connotations.  The Johnny Reb, The Stars and Stripes, Saudi Flag, Israeli flag.....all are symbols to someone.
> 
> I would say that the Saudi Flag may not have been founded on slavery as we define it in the states, but there are historical nuances that could make it a negative symbol to someone.


 Thank you, that was my point exactly.


----------



## GAB (Jan 6, 2005)

Hi,

How about the fact that you had a very concerned President and Vice President who felt that the states should stay United. (Lincoln and Johnson).

Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Jan 6, 2005)

Hi,

Slavery has been around since the dawn of time. If you look at the History of man it does not matter which culture, there was a form of slavery.

The Arabs were big time slave traders. Same with the Chinese. If you really look at the way Church's and Military are run it is similar only there is a ladder you can climb. 

Regards, Gary


----------



## Satt (Jan 6, 2005)

Anyone know if the girl won or lost the lawsuit yet???


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 6, 2005)

Satt said:
			
		

> Anyone know if the girl won or lost the lawsuit yet???


 
Gee...what that what this was all about?....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Gee...what that what this was all about?....


 :rofl:

I think they just filed the suit, so it'll take time to get to trial.

Another news brief : http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42046


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 6, 2005)

I have not seen any new news stories concerning Ms. Duty. There was the initial press release on or about 12/21, a follow-up photo op, with Ms. Duty in the dress (gee, that sounds funny, doesn't it?) on 12/22 or 12/23.

I saw the Southern Party of Georgia had a link message dated 12/17.

I can't find a web site for Russell High School in Lexington Kentucky, nor can I find an official response from them. 

If anyone can find any new information, a link would be appreciated.



Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2005)

1. Sigh.

2. One did not argue at any time that the War was only about slavery for either side. One argued that the South in particular believed it was fighting to maintain slavery as one of its property owners' fundamental rights; one suggested, but did not argue in detail, that the North, a) used slavery as an issue, b) ended up (following Catton's thesis) finding out that the War had far more radical consequences than it intended.

3. When we see the maintenance of a claim about ideas that runs contrary  to one's specific, repeated statements (or, in the case of discussing Southern motives, in direct defiance of explicit, repeated, passionately held expressions of belief), it is always useful to search for explanations. At times, it may be that somebody's unconscious has got the better of them--as we often see in paranoiac constrctions such as, "the Jews have taken over America," and a closely-related claim, "the liberal media has taken over America." At other times, it may very be that the refusal to read well stems from a refusal to reconsider deeply held, ideologically-reinforced beliefs--such as the recurrent belief that it is, at present, "white men," who suffer most from racism and gender discrimination in America. Here, the claim that, "Robert says it was all about slavery," helps to a) reduce the historical complexity of the argument, b) reinforce a theory about present-day America that cannot be sustained by fact.

4. Like others, one would love to know who Ms. Duty is. One's own paranoiac suspicion that this is one among many recent examples of, "individual," acts of very right-wing protest that are in fact created, developed and supported by very right-wing groups.


----------



## someguy (Jan 6, 2005)

I figure I should say somethin about this here confederate flag.  
It means differnt things to differnt people.  
I'm proud of the south.  I don't really get the whole whee lookie a confederate flag thing myself.  But I do understand southern pride.  Not that I done expect y'all to understand it...d***yankees
Hmm don't know if that first half of that word is cencored here or not.  wait to yankees its the first word.
Now about this girl wearing a flag dress thingie.  Well It is a symbol.  It can mean more than one thing.  It depends on who you are.  I doubt it had anything to do with haterd bigotry or anything like that for her to wear it to her prom.  It is her prom after all.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 6, 2005)

Out of curiosity, the guy has to match the prom gown of the girl, supposedly. Does anyone know what he was wearing lol....?


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 6, 2005)

I would still say that everyone has a right to feel what they feel about St. Andrew's cross (The stars and bars was a different flag), but, ultimately, the flag truly belongs to those that were there, at that point of time, fighting, bleeding and dying for it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2005)

Right. Girl shows up at a ball wearing a Confederate flag, and she had no notion of making a statement. Nor did her immediately being invited to be the guest of honor at the Jefferson Davis Ball (guess they thought holding the Martin Bormann Ball would be in poor taste) mean a darn thing.

But one loved the question about what the date was wearing. God send, given the fetishization of fake normalcy behind the Flag bit, that the date was a woman...preferably African-American.

That, one could respect.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 7, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Right. Girl shows up at a ball wearing a Confederate flag, and she had no notion of making a statement.


Actually, Ms. Duty had every idea that the dress was going to create a ruckus. The principal of the school (Russell High School), a Mr. Black (or Back, in some reports) called her the night before the prom and told her not to come to the dance in that dress.

I am still searching for articles about this incident newer than December 17 - 23.

Mike

P.S. This article, a letter from Ms. Duty, indicates that she has forewarning that the dress would not be allowed.
http://www.slrc-csa.org/letters/rebflagdress.htm


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 7, 2005)

This is from the SLRC website; it's part of a speech given by H.K. Edgerton, already cited several times on this thread--the black guy who claims to have walked some 1500 miles through the South, wearing a Confederate uniform and bearing their Flag. In the speech, he argues for having Southerners defionedas a separate ethnic and cultural minority--"We have our own cuisine," he says--and he also says this about the Civil War:

"As an honorary Texan I am especially proud that thousands of black men and black women served humbly, but honorably, in a variety of ways to further the Confederate war effort, alongside their fellow white Texans. 

Accompanying their master to war, protecting the farms and plantations and keeping them functioning to raise foodstuffs for armies and civilians, serving on the coastal waters as seamen, working in the blacksmith shops, manning the new factories, armories and foundrys to make the implements of war, working in the hospitals to succor the wounded and dying, performing back-breaking hard labor for the Confederate Engineer Corps to build the Texas coastal fortifications that kept the Yankees at bay for 4 years. 

In almost any labor vacuum created by the war in Texas, black men and women stood ready to fill. 

Many of them slaves, some free, all willing to serve Texas and the Confederacy  with no explicit demand for emancipation 

The black people of Texas knew that eventually freedom would come and that loyalty and hard work would secure the double reward of independence and freedom. 

Right up until 1865 we, the people of Texas, and the South  black & white were family. It took the horrible years of Reconstruction and all the wiles of the carpetbaggers and scalawags to divide black and white. And in many cases, tragically, they succeeded. 

To this hollow triumph, the North embittered race relations in the South up to the present day, the present hour. 

But, as most of you know, the North and its minions did not entirely succeed. Despite all the obstacles, the pressure, the trials, many Southern whites and Southern blacks, in Texas and throughout the South, were able to maintain the close family relationship that existed before the war. 

Every man, woman and child in the South, black or white, knows the truth of this statement, and those that say different are liars. 

So lets let it all hang out. Morris Dees, if you are listening, write this down: 

A great deal of love existed between master and slave, black and white, before the war  i.e. while slavery was the law of the land. 

Do you want me to say it again? 

A great deal of love existed between master and slave, black and white, before the war. It is a fact, a solid fact and editing and re-editing the slave narratives will not erase that fact. 

Love existed between master and slave. We were family, black and white. 

Neither were Southern white people solely responsible for the institution of slavery!"

No doubt them happy, happy slaves was a-doin' the buck-and-wing at every opportunity. And given the propensity of white owners to treat black women as sex slaves, one can only stare in awe at the, "Love existed between master and slave," remark.

These are the guys who are pushing the "white men are oppressed," bit, as well as the, "Southern liberation," jazz.

For sheer looniness, it's hard to eclipse this one, at least this side of Sun Myung Moon.

"Old times are not forgotten,
Whuppin' slaves and choppin' cotton,
And waiting for the Robert E. Lee...
It was never there on time."

---Tom Lehrer, "My Old Kentucky Home"

"In America, you'll get food to eat
Won't have to run through the jungle 
And scuff up your feet
You'll just sing about Jesus and drink wine all day
It's great to be an American"

---Randy Newman, "Sail Away"


----------



## Kreth (Jan 7, 2005)

Ok, so we've established that Bob is a racist, as is anyone not burning Confederate flags at every opportunity. I think our next target should be the color grey. In fact, I'm calling for a ban on grey uniforms for law enforcement officials, as they evoke memories of that nasty, racist Confederate army. 

Jeff


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 7, 2005)

Uh-oh...let's not get in on the Yankee trash talking!


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 7, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Ok, so we've established that Bob is a racist, as is anyone not burning Confederate flags at every opportunity.


 Can you point out where in the 10+ pages of this thread where someone accused Bob of being a racist?  Thanks.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 7, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Ok, so we've established that Bob is a racist, as is anyone not burning Confederate flags at every opportunity. I think our next target should be the color grey. In fact, I'm calling for a ban on grey uniforms for law enforcement officials, as they evoke memories of that nasty, racist Confederate army.
> 
> Jeff



I think we should drop the state name "Alabama" and come up with something less hurtfull.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 7, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think we should drop the state name "Alabama" and come up with something less hurtfull.


 How about "WhiteHeritageLand"?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 7, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> How about "WhiteHeritageLand"?


With a name like that, they'd have to have rides, too.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 7, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> With a name like that, they'd have to have rides, too.


 I'm sure they could come up with exciting theme parks celebrating the joys of State's Rights, and showing the Happy Lives led by the slaves that actually enjoyed the Stainless Banner.  

 Animatronic, Well Cared-For Field Slaves could delight visitors with musical numbers as they wisked from scene to scene demonstrating the Gentlemanly Delights of Confederate Life.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 7, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I'm sure they could come up with exciting theme parks celebrating the joys of State's Rights, and showing the Happy Lives led by the slaves that actually enjoyed the Stainless Banner.
> 
> Animatronic, Well Cared-For Field Slaves could delight visitors with musical numbers as they wisked from scene to scene demonstrating the Gentlemanly Delights of Confederate Life.


:roflmao:


----------



## Kreth (Jan 7, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Can you point out where in the 10+ pages of this thread where someone accused Bob of being a racist?  Thanks.


Flat out, or insinuated...

Jeff


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 7, 2005)

Ah, it's just grand when the political opposition throws those letter-high sluggish fastballs that they learned from Rush and Savage and Leykis right down the pipe.

Oooh! YOU guys called Bob a racist!! You GUYS should ban the color GRAY!!

What's next...YOU GUYS SAID slavery was bad!! YOU GUYS DON'T EVEN LIKE WARS!!! YOU HATE AMERICA!!!! Traitor, tray-tor, naah naah naah na na nah.

Gentlemen, pick up some halfway-decent intellectual ammo, willya? Try: Bruce Catton, "White Iron on the Anvil," from "A Stillness at Appomattox," (New York: Washington Square Press, 1958), 226 ff. Or try the aforementioned Sollers anthology. Or hell, since this thread features the recurrent idea that slavery was not so bad, try a cheapie source like Robert A. Heinlein's "Citizen of the Galaxy," for a good sound healthy sf take on why slavery is bad, and how slavery tends to be supported by capitalism--even the capitalism of nice sweet liberal folks.

Personally, one blames teachers for this.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 7, 2005)

I find the whole defense of a slavery institution to be bizarre at best.  

No, I'm sure the North wasn't a perfect society.  

I'm sure the South wasn't either, too.

I still agree that the teenager who spent 4 years preparing for her prom had a statement to make, and I am doubtful that a symbol of the Confederacy is really about Southern pride as it is about a whitewashed nostalgia for Tymes Gone Bye...if not something more sinister.

White supremacists, historical revisionists, and just a general kind of nutbags... are alive and well.  

Or maybe this was a Southern Belle trying to make her mark in High Fashion.  Which, for those of you who have seen _Zoolander_ know, controls the worldwide production of clothing.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 7, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I find the whole defense of a slavery institution to be bizarre at best.


I don't think anyone was trying to claim that the Civil War era South was a peachy place (no pun intended). 

Jeff


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 7, 2005)

Read the thread, and take a look at some of the appalling websites like "Friends of Forrest," eh? That's exactly what's being claimed.

As for the theme parks...bad news. Splash Mountain--available now in Japan!!--has featured animatronic versions of the lovable Disney characters from "Song of the South," for quite some time. There was "Dumbo," which they don't even show any more because of the grossly racist Heckle n'Jeckle. Then there was that whole, "Why, the antebellum South was just a happyland, with singing darkies who jus' LOVED bein' slaves!" You know..."Gone With the Wind?" The one where the one black freedman you see is a soldier who breaks into Tara and tries to rape and kill everybody? Not since "Birth of A Nation," has such crap been promulgated. 
Shame they didn't do their NEXT movie, the one covering the good old days of Nazi Germany, and telling the sentimental tale of Eva Braun's sufferings as those damn' Allies invaded...

Whoops, wait, one forgot. The portrayal of the South and the War by the liberal media is exculsively condemnatory, and Never Says Nothing Nice about the South. So, "Birth of A Nation," never existed, we libs just made that up. "Gone With the Wind?" never happened. The image of the noble, defeated Southern general and soldier, Lee? never saw it, never happened. Step'n Fetchit? never existed. Absolutely not. Product of the liberal agenda, KGB disinformation...Godlessness. 

Worth reading is Dorfman and Mattelart's "How to Read Donald Duck."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 7, 2005)

Gentlemen and other debaters....

 Anytime I argue against the populist viewpoint that the Civil War (more correctly identified as The War for Southern Independence) was all about slavery, that reparations to slave descendent's is wrong, or that there is any bias against whites in this nation, I have been slurred, insulted, slandered, etc. by numerous people. Implied, or flat out stated...either way, it means nothing to me. I know what is truly in my own heart, as do my gods. 

 I'm rather used to it though. Especially when those arguing are unable to stick to issues, and instead tangent out in sarcastic and emotional tirades. I admit to not being a saint in that area either. But I am a poor collage dropout, not one with advanced education and a position as an educator, or a community leader, or a learned expert.

 We watch Roots, and read the official history and are taught to believe that the mis-named "Civil War" was all about Slavery, that Lincoln 'freed' slaves, that Slavery was an evil and sinful institution, and that all 'massas' mistreated their slaves.

  The Truth, which some continue to refuse to see is that simply is not true.
  - The "South" had a legal right to secede.
  - The "War for Southern Independence" was not all about slavery, but self-determination and preservation.
  - Lincolns invasion was illegal, fought in violation of both international treaty, and this nations own laws.
 - The South raised armys to defend itself.  The North to invade and conquer. 
 - Lincolns own staff advised against the war, and wanted to sue for peace for the first 2 years! 
 - Virginia argued the loudest in congress AGAINST secesion.
  - Not all slaves were black.
  - Most of the South did not own slaves.
  - Not all slaves resented being slaves
  - The SOUTH! were the leaders in working towards eliminating slavery in America until the late 1830's.
  - Our official history was written by the winners, with the losers forced to watch things rewritten.
  - Etc.

  For reference:
  Myths of American Slavery by Walter Donald Kennedy
  The South Was Right! by James Ronald Kennedy, Walter Donald Kennedy
  The Real Lincoln - Thomas J. DiLorenzo

 The institution and economics of slavery were a part of the causes for the war, yes. But slave labor, white, black and red, built this nation.
  Nothing in the Bible (Christian) states slavery is a sin, despite being written during an age when slavery was a way of life.

  As to the population of the South:
  At the time of the war, 
  75% of the Southern population did not own a single slave.
  Out of a total White population of 8 Million, only 385,000 owned 1 or more slaves.
  Of those that did, 50% owned 1-5, 38% owned 5-20, and 12% owned 20+ which was the minimum needed to classify as a planter.
  There were numerous Black planters, some owning 50+ slaves.
 According to the 1830 Census, over 10,000 slaves were owned by African Americans in SC/LO/VI/MD. Also, in NY 8 African Americans owned 17 slaves, in 1830!
 Why were there not wide-spread slave revolts during the war, when all the 'white-boys' were out 'defending slavery', and the only ones left watching all those big southern plantations were the women and the slaves?

 Yes, slavery was and is wrong. Yes, abuses did take place, just like in any system. But, just because abuses took place, doesn't mean the group as a whole is evil. US Soldiers in Iraq committed crimes...but that doesn't mean that the US, it's military, or it's flag are evil. Atrocities were committed by both sides in the WOSI, that doesn't make either nation 'evil'.

 We can look at the wording of the various documents of secession, and see that by todays more enlightened ideals, the wording is very racist. But, we cannot judge those writings by our standards, but the standards of the day. That standard, believed North, South, East and West was that the Black, Red and Yellow was inferior to the White. It is plainly stated in the speeches, writing etc. of leaders and common man alike from that time period. Lincoln himself wanted to deport all blacks. Personally, I believe all men are created equal...but the balance shifts as they age. I don't believe a rabid klansman is = to Dr. Cosby for example. One has limits, the other has overcome his.

  Robert can torpedo half my arguments...and I'm damn glad he can. What he cannot do is sink them all. 

 I'm done with this....I can't think of anything else I could possibly say here to expand, explain, etc. Barring new information on that ugly dress, I'll be reading, but thats it. I will be posting sometime later (hopefully before Feb) my take on slavery and it's myths. I will be referencing the 3 books mentioned above, as well as some other outside sources.

  Peace.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 7, 2005)

As a writer who merely "tangent out," in, "sarcastic and emotional tirades," from the viewpoint of a privileged, over-educated wealthy snob (and Mr. Hubbard, you may very well find that cutting down on such rhetoric will assist in cutting down on the heat of the discussion, as well as allowing you a clearer understanding of the actual lives of people who disagree with you), let me offer my own little manifesto.

1. The American institution of slavery was, and is, inherently evil. Why? Because it rests on the proposition that owning others is perfectly OK--because they aren't really human beings. 
2. Slavery was an integral part of early America's economic structure, particularly in the South.
3. As the difference between "feudal," and "modern," modes of production grew in the United States, the North and South found themselves increasingly at odds.
4. The Southern states, a) fought at every level to maintain and indeed to extend the institution of slavery; b) the war parties both North and South saw war as becoming more and more inevitable throughout the 1850s, and both centered this belief upon slavery; c) when the Southern states seceded, they claimed that they were doing so because the North was implacably opposed to slavery, which they considered to be fundamental to not only the rights of individual States and their property-owners, but to the Constitution as a whole.
5. The two sides--actually, there were more--began the War arrogantly, short-sightedly, and stupidly, and they began the actual fighting pretty much that way too.
6. The North deliberately put off any, "freeing of the slaves," for reasons that were political, economic, and racist.
7. The North got its *** kicked for the first third of the War, largely because of politics and greed.
8. The South was at least as stupid and corrupt as the North by 1863. They were just fortunate enough to have a better set of professionaal military men at first.
9. After 1863, the South got whupped. Yes, this was in part because their antiquated economic system couldn't keep up--which suggests that something racist was going on when they refused to even consider abandoning slavery. On the other hand, Lincoln used Antietam as an excuse to emancipate, despite a fair amount of opposition and despite his own racism.
10. The South got beat. They surrendered. The soldiers were treated pretty well by the victors.
11. Much as after WWI, the war party in the North took advantage and grabbed everything that wasn't nailed down. Since the war party was largely republican, this set a pattern of Southern voting for democrats that lasted about a century and a third.
12. After the War, Forrest and others founded explicitly racist parties/gangs such as the Klan, because they did not want black peeoplee to vote, to own decent property, or to have power. To enforce this, they not only pushed the Jim Crow laws--after 1880 or so, they increasingly lynched, burned, and castrated as part of a fairly-systematic regin of terror.
13. Meanwhile, back up Nawth, the country was marching Westward over the bodies of countless Indians. And Progress--in the form of industrial capitalism--was really getting off the ground. This meant what Marx called, 'wage-slavery.'
14. Both sides pushed their offical mythologies. A look at American culture suggests that the South was at least as good at this as anybody else, as best-sellers like, "The Klansman," filed as Griffith's, "Birth of a Nation," demonstrate.
15. In response to intensifying racism in the South, and to some extent in the North, groups like the NAACP were founded. They were immediately attacked, in very much the same ways they are today.
16. In the South, a highly-developed set of mythologies provided a goodly chunk of the ideological support structure for segregation, and for the violent denial of real citizenship to black people. On the whole, the region remained screwed for around a century.
17. In the North, capitalism drove what you could either call the democratization of daily life or the triumph of the middle class, depending on your viewpoint at the time. On the whole, the region became prosperous for about a century or so.
18. In both cases, ideology remained complex--as did racism. They merely took forms that were to some extent specific to their part of the country. The North mythologized guys like Chamberlain; the South, guys like Lee. Judging by the cultural documents--and Disney provides excellent illusstrations--both "sides," did pretty well in promulgating their myths.
19. The World Wars radically changed both economic patterns, and the "racial," makeup of North and South. Northerners often ghettoized people; Southerners often kept the poor and black folks down on the farm.
20. The Civil Rights struggles that started with WWII took different forms in different areas. In some ways, they were the most violent in the South because they were the most obvious, ugly and violent examples of apartheid in all its forms, including lynching. There were other forms of apartheid that we still have with us today, throughout the country.
21. Southerners tended to blame libs and Jews and Nawtherners and Catholics and etc. for historical changes. Northeners tended to blame libs and foreigners for historical changes. Both sides maintained not only their different patterns of racism, but their different patters of economic and political exploitation of the poor and the working class. So, Southern politicans have tended to race-bait, together with claiming patriotism as their excuse. Northern ones have tended to push capitalism uber alles, claiming reason and business as their excuse.
22. We are at present undergoing a period of backlash, in which white men have to try and make up all sorts of absurd stories about American history to maintain their self-images, status in society/family, economic privileges, and other perks that we've long taken for granted as, "natural." Since nothing could be less natural and the material conditions that created that myth of natural privilege have changed forever, this creates some problems.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 7, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Gentlemen and other debaters....
> 
> 
> The Truth, which some continue to refuse to see is that simply is not true.
> ...


Lincoln/the Union administration did not recognize the South as a foriegn nation - therefore from his perspective - international violations were moot points.  They were states that refused to recognize the power of the presidency/federal government as superior to that of the states.  In the "northern mind" these states were treasonous.

The South raised an army to maintain their independent identity - just as the American revolutionaries did not too long before.  The North was not looking to 'conquer' so much as pacify a resistence that had reached a grand scale of war.

No, some were indians, some were Poles/Irish...as well through history but I don't see how that is relevent to the topic at hand (even as a tangent).

You are correct, most southerners did not own slaves...they were too poor and lived much like slaves themselves.  The minority that did own them (and especially in volume) showed little concern for 'social welfare' or fair market practices so the white poor were barely one step above most of the black slaves in the Southern Elite mind.

Agreed on the writers of history.  But, some of the documentation that is presented now (not so much as in the past), does present a southern perspective on the war.

No side is ever pristinely 'righteous' in a war.  Even the war of the "Greatest Generation" has angles on it that can dirty it up a little once you get past the hero worship.

Again, back to the dress issue.  I would say the school leaders needed to be practicing consistency in enforcement AND probably focusing more on the girls going to a formal dance in 'hoochi mama' dresses than some girl wearing a rebel flag...

I would think that the community would have been so desensitized to that image because of the little stickers, t=shirts, hats, flags on truck...that already have it in the school, in the parking lot and all over the rest of the community.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm picking the points I disagree with or need to expand on.  The majority of what Robert posted, I agree with.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. The American institution of slavery was, and is, inherently evil. Why? Because it rests on the proposition that owning others is perfectly OK--because they aren't really human beings.


 I agree.  What is missing is the 'mindset' of that time, not today.  Throughout history, ownership of another has been allowed...in fact, by law, certain groups were defined as slaves.  Indian POWs, negros (imported, purchased or exchanged) and criminals.  (Massachusetts law, predating any Southern law, never repealed.) "_Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts, George Moore, 1866, p18-19_"



> 4. The Southern states, a) fought at every level to maintain and indeed to extend the institution of slavery;


 Not true.  Yes, they did fight, but to maintain the right to decide for themselves.
 - Gradual freedom was the method prefered by the South, not immediate as demanded by Radical Abolishionists.  This gradual system worked in England and many other nations.  Radicals wanted it now, never mind that many of the slaves were not ready for freedom. (education, etc)

 - The South wanted to stop the importation of new slaves from Africa, prior to the Revolutionary War.  In fact, Thomas Jefferson (A Virginian slave holder) wanted to insert language into the Declaration of Independence specifying ONE of the reasons for the 13 colonies secession from England was the Kings refusal to stem the importation of African Slaves.

 - The Southern Slave States wanted to stop the importation of African Slaves, however New England slave traders pushed back the 'stop date' over a decade.

 - The Confederate Constitution banned the importation of African Slaves, and allowed each member State to decide for itself what to do about slavery.



> 4c) when the Southern states seceded, they claimed that they were doing so because the North was implacably opposed to slavery, which they considered to be fundamental to not only the rights of individual States and their property-owners, but to the Constitution as a whole.


 That is 1 way to look at it.  I and others see it as the refusal to enforce slavery-friendly laws.  Also, remember, slaves/blacks were counted as 3/4th person on the census.  HOR membership is based on state population.  As the North became more and more hostile towards blacks (banning them in some states), population declined in the North, giving more political power to the South.



> 9. After 1863, the South got whupped. Yes, this was in part because their antiquated economic system couldn't keep up--which suggests that something racist was going on when they refused to even consider abandoning slavery. On the other hand, Lincoln used Antietam as an excuse to emancipate, despite a fair amount of opposition and despite his own racism.


 Antiquated system, yes.   Most industry was in the North.  Also, The Northern population was about 2x the size of the Souths.

 The abandonment was considered, but in a phased controled manner, not a sudden "everyone out of de cottun patch, you be free" manner pushed by radical abolitionists.

 Lincolns action was done out of political desparation, and cost him significantly.  More importantly, it cost the lives of thousands of Northern Blacks, especially in NYC who were murdered after the EP was issued.



> 10. The South got beat. They surrendered. The soldiers were treated pretty well by the victors.


 Yes. Yes. No.

 - Lee commented prior to his death that had he known what was going to happen, he would never have surrendered, but went down fighting.

 - Northern Prison Camps were horror chambers.  They had a higher mortality rate than their Southern equivilants.  While everyone may be familiar with Andersonville (I think there was a movie about that southern nightmare), few hear about Elmira, which was by all accounts, almost as bad a horror as the German POW camps during WWII.



> 22. We are at present undergoing a period of backlash, in which white men have to try and make up all sorts of absurd stories about American history .....


 I am not seeking to rewrite/redefine/reimagine/etc.  Everything I have said, is based on my research.  Yes, some of it has been faulty, but, so has yours.  My point has been that the truth is more often somewhere in the middle on much of this.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 7, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I find the whole defense of a slavery institution to be bizarre at best.


 I'm not defending slavery.

 I'm saying the 'truth' as we know it is wrong, simplified, and more complex than we imagine.

 I'm also saying theres nothing 'racist' about Confederate flags.

 Oh, and that a State has the right to leave the Union.



 Ah yeah, also that that dress was pretty tacky..I mean, sequins?  eww.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 7, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I'm not defending slavery.
> 
> I'm saying the 'truth' as we know it is wrong, simplified, and more complex than we imagine.
> 
> ...


Bob ~ actually, I wasn't referring to what you have said, but several articles that have been referenced, etc.  

I think that Confederate flags have been "co-opted" by certain groups in contemporary America, to have it stand for something that it did not necessarily stand for during the actual Confederacy.

I do not know whether this Belle of the Ball was using the flag to refer to the historical Confederacy, and "southern pride", or if she was using it to refer to various groups that today use the Conf. flag a symbol to rally behind for other causes/desires.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 7, 2005)

King George sends troops to invade and conquer, denies rights exist for "americans" and is considered to be a tyrant.

Abraham Lincoln denies constitutional rights (suspends Habeous Corpus, etc...) causing the supreme court to say he's acting illegally, where they are threatened to put in prison. He raises an army to invade, conquer, and subjugate, and he's considered a Great President.

Succession is "Illegal" and not "recognized", unless it's the new state of West Virginia, which goes to the union side.

Rebels were great patriots because the rebelled and fought against a Tyrant forces that were invading.
Rebels are jerks because they are fighting against invaders from the north.

Just A Little Consistency Please!


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 7, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> <snip>
> Ah yeah, also that that dress was pretty tacky..I mean, sequins? eww.


:shrug:  In some circles those sequins are tres chic, Mr. Bob.  

All the better to call attention to herself and her cause.:enguard:

I found her letter to the media somewhat informative as to her intent.  That she was whining about being picked on... well, she's a teenager.  [Notice how upset she was that she *only* got one dance - out on the sidewalk - and that the principal and security 'ganged up' on her.]  *One* has to wonder if she really thought through what the repercussions would be.


----------



## Bester (Jan 9, 2005)

One has to wonder if Ms. Flag looked like this: http://www.southernoutlet.com/bikini_view.htm
or if she'd worn this dress instead: http://www.southernoutlet.com/ccp5/media/images/product_detail/tank_lg.gif

If folks would still be pissing and moaning.

Then again, maybe it's more preferable to wear a blue dress.

Now, I go to read up on the remake of the Dukes of Hazzard..
So far, no flag, the cars name has changed, and I think Cooter is now black.
Boss Hogg is still Boss Hogg, but it's now William Jefferson....  damn political correctness.


----------

