# Judges back schools Confederate flag ban



## elder999 (Aug 21, 2008)

Seen  here



> NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday in favor of a Tennessee school system that banned the Confederate battle flag because of concerns the symbol could inflame racial tensions at a high school.
> Students Derek Barr, Chris White, Roger Craig White and their parents said in a lawsuit their free speech rights were violated by the 2005 flag ban at William Blount High School in Maryville, about 15 miles south of Knoxville.
> School officials said the ban came after previous race-related incidents that included a racial slur, a fight, a civil rights complaint, a lockdown and graffiti depicting a Confederate flag and a noose.


 
I can understand this falling under the issue of a school dress code, or being similar to the banning of "gang attire," or "sagging," and I know that "free speech" is somewhat limited for kids in school, and probably should be. 

The "Confederate flag," however, is a separate issue. Like many people from Northern states-of all colors, and many other people of color from all over the country, I've believed the Confederate flag to be something akin to the Nazi swastika. I think I was wrong, and I believe when I'm wrong I should apologize. I think calls for the banning of it are wrong as well, though I think those southern states that continue to fly it over municipal and state buildings are making a  mistake.

I once had some friends over for dinner and we were talking about how important it is to be sensitive about past injustices. My friend Patricia was chastising me for eating and serving grapes, because of the long suffering and protracted battle they represented for Cesar Chavez and migrant workers-and how it didnt matter that they were Chilean grapes, grapes were still an offensive symbol of oppression. My friend Freddie then told of how his Navajo ancestors were murdered by soldiers, and the survivors were forced to leaace their homeland and march across New Mexico to the Bosque Redondo. Many died on the way. I asked him if those who robbed and killed his ancestors had a flag. Imagine my surprise when he told me that they were flying the American Stars and Stripes when they committed those crimes. Then my friend Janie, who was raised on the Lakota reservation, told me about her great-great grandfather, who was killed by Amercian soldiers at the Wounded Knee Massacre. I was speechless when she told me Old Glory was waving in the wind as American soldiers murdered her people. As we sipped our coffee, my friend Margaret told of how her relatives were butchered by Colonel John Chivington and his American soldiers at Sand Creek, in Colorado, and how the soldiers had murdered defenselss old people, women and children in cold blood. The soldiers mutilated the corpses, took body parts to Denver and paraded in the streets with them, When John Chivington ( Methodist minister) was asked why theyd murdered the children he replied, Nits grow to be lice. I asked Margaret if theyd flown a flag, and she told me that the American Stars and Stripes had presided on the killing field at Sand Creek. 
I reflected on how, years ago in a religious studies class, the teacher had told us how the original Christian symbol was a fish, and how offensive the cross would be to an early Roman or Byzantine Christian-it would be like wearing an electric chair or hanging scaffold as jewelry, or using a gas-chamber as an icon.  
Perhaps I need to stop flying the flag in front of my home, and remove the Support our Troops bumper sticker from my car, as they are offensive symbols to my friends, just as the Confederate flag is supposed to be to me. It seems that in a Democracy, free speech should end when it offends someone else. Now, I dont believe thats true, and Ill continue to fly my flag proudly, as it doesnt mean years of oppression to me, any more than it did to my dinner guests. Ill probably continue to internally question why someone is displaying a Confederate flag, and perhaps be wary of them, and maybe even offended, but Ill defend their right to do so, and perhaps even respect those sons of the South who view it as part of their heritage and pride of place, and its to them that I apologize.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 21, 2008)

I remember flying into Atlanta GA some years ago and seeing the state flag, the design of which included the Confederate flag, flying all over the place.  I'm a Jew, and I cringed, until I realized that it's just the state flag! The design had historical significance--not only to Southerners, but to Americans--and it did not imply that Atlantans were bigots. (The Atlantans were rather nice actually.)


----------



## theletch1 (Aug 21, 2008)

Elder, I'm impressed with your post.  I truly am.  I'm a southerner and really just don't "get" the need to continue to fly the confederate flag.  The war is over, folks.  The huge majority of folks around my area that fly that flag do so, not out of any sense of racism, but out of a sense of "redneck fashion".  It's a symbol of heritage to some, I know.  It's also a symbol of much hate and bigotry to others.  It's how and why the flag was continued to be used after the civil war that causes it to be such a point of contention.  Ban it?  If it's being used as a symbol to intimidate, then, certainly get rid of it.  If it's some yokels that wear it because they think it just looks "cool" or they watched one too many episodes of The Dukes of Hazzard during the mullet days then I don't see a problem.  For me, I don't wear it, display it or fly it.  I wasn't around during the war so I see no need to show any connection to it.


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 21, 2008)

I see the flag as a symbol of a "nation" and nothing more.  I don't necessarily tie it to all of their ideals.  I have to agree that the horrible part is what people USE the flag to represent.  The manner in which is is used is what is offensive.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Aug 22, 2008)

I see the flag as that of a nation also.  Many fought for that nation and died for there beliefs that each state should have the right to govern itself and separate  from the Union if they so desired. 
My wife had way to many distant relatives die under that flag for what they thought was a just cause. She wears the flag on her jacket and is proud of the heritage from which she comes.  While I may not agree with her ideas at times I fully believe she as a citizen of this country has the right to them.
Those that flew the flag did so for many reasons, not all of which involved slavery, which seems to be the first and foremost thing that people associate the war of the states  and the Confederate flag with.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 22, 2008)

The "Confederate Flag" was actually a battle flag, it was NOT a national flag or the flag of the confederate states and it was not flown as such on confederate gov't buildings.  In fact, all of the slave ships (american) that brought the slaves over flew the "American Flag" on their ships and came to port in the Northern US.


Here is the actual flag of the Confederecy 








I have known several people who have displayed that flag, and to them it represets the ideal that the civil war was fought for (in their opinion) and that is state rights over a big federal gov't.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 22, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> The "Confederate Flag" was actually a battle flag, it was NOT a national flag or the flag of the confederate states and it was not flown as such on confederate gov't buildings. .


 

...and, in fact, it's a Confederate _Naval_ Jack-meant to fly over ships, really, though I think it does often get portrayed being used in land battles.....this is another reason why I decided not to care too much: if they want to fly a naval flag over a non-naval building, well, how seriously can I take that?:lol:


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 22, 2008)

I think it all depends on the reasons behind its usage.  If it was being used as a racist symbol, then the ban would be appropriate.  Similar to banning gang colours or other hate symbols which, in a different context might not have any meaning.

But the confederate flag has other meanings as well, when used to represent those things or as a historical item it should definately not be banned.

"School officials said the ban came after previous race-related incidents that included a racial slur, a fight, a civil rights complaint, a lockdown and graffiti depicting a Confederate flag and a noose."

I think says that it was being used as a symbol for racism, which is unfortunate, but I can understand why they would want to ban it if that was happening.  It is unfortunate that a symbol of a big chunk of the countries heritage would be asbused in such a way though.  But look what the Nazi's did to the Swastika, a symbol used in buhhdism long before the Nazi party and with a entirely different meaning.  Nowadays wearing that symbol in the west will get you in trouble though, again unfortunate when you look at the history behind that symbol prior to the Nazi's taking it over.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 22, 2008)

elder999 said:


> ...and, in fact, it's a Confederate _Naval_ Jack-meant to fly over ships, really, though I think it does often get portrayed being used in land battles.....this is another reason why I decided not to care too much: if they want to fly a naval flag over a non-naval building, well, how seriously can I take that?:lol:


 

There were some different versions.  This site has a quick synopsis of the American and Confederate flags during the civil war.

http://tmg110.tripod.com/usn4.htm

For a more detailed look at the different flags used by the confederecy and their history go to this site.

http://www.confederateflags.org/


----------



## elder999 (Aug 22, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> . In fact, all of the slave ships (american) that brought the slaves over flew the "American Flag" on their ships and came to port in the Northern US.


 

Actually, that's not quite true. 

The principal slave ports in what became the United States were Richmond Va., Charleston, SC, and New Orleans, La. Slave ships did come to port in "Northern" states, like Maryland, earlier, Massachussets and New York, but that actually would have been _before_ there was an "American" flag.......


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 22, 2008)

It's all about perspective. The same icon can have several different meanings depending on who is viewing it and what they associate it with. Since we're talking about the Confederate flag let's use it as the example.

To several people it represents the sufferage of blacks during the days of slavery. They associate it with the attrocity of "owning" another human being and put it right up their with the Nazi flag. 

On the other hand, some folks view it as a symbol of the last vestiges of the principles of individual freedoms and states rights that were initially inherent in the US Constitution. 

Some see it as historic and related to their heritage; it simply depends on who is viewing it and what they associate it with, regardless of the symbol. 

The swastika was actually viewed as a positive symbol up until it became associated with the Nazi's. Because of that association, people now see it in a negative light; at least in the Western World. 

Even though the Civil War was mostly about State's Rights, Trade, Taxation, and the Economy...people for some reason think it was all about freeing the slaves. I hate to break it to some of you, but no war has ever been waged over a noble ideal.....ever. Not even the American Revolution; that too was mostly about $$$. 

It's because the states that seceded from the Union were "Slave States" and _adopted_ the Confederate Flag that it is associated with slavery and has continued to be associated with it through the media. Slavery itself was actually tolerated under Old Glory, so from that perspective the Stars & Stripes should be just as offensive as the Confederate flag. Just ask a Native American as cited above about the attrocities committed under our pride and joy. Perhaps if 90% of the Native American population hadn't been whiped out by Europeans there'd be enough of them around to draw attention to that fact. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's only offensive if you allow it to offend you. Anything can illicit a bad memory or emotion; a smell, a thought, a word....will you outlaw everything that reminds you of something bad? Will you play the part of Pavlov's dog your whole life?


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 22, 2008)

hmmm,
confederate flag

rainbow gay flag

guess which one will not be allowed?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> hmmm,
> confederate flag
> 
> rainbow gay flag
> ...


 
So....if homosexuals adopt the "rainbow" does that mean leprechauns will be offended? What about diversity groups, they use the rainbow symbol as well? Are homosexuals offended by leprechauns? Wait a minute...don't some Christian organizations use the rainbow for their symbol as well? OMG! It's symbol anarchy!!! Where will it end!?!?!?!


----------



## elder999 (Aug 22, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> I hate to break it to some of you, but no war has ever been waged over a noble ideal.....ever. Not even the American Revolution; that too was mostly about $$$.


 
But, but.....what about the war to get WMDs out of Saddam's hands, I mean to free the Iraqi people from a ruthless tyrant and bring democracy to the Middle East...I mean......:lol:


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> hmmm,
> confederate flag
> 
> rainbow gay flag
> ...



OMG!  I totally get you.  It was really shameful when all those gay people seceded from the union and started a war over their right to own others.

Although considering this is Tennessee, I doubt a rainbow flag would be allowed either.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Aug 23, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Elder, I'm impressed with your post.  I truly am.  I'm a southerner and really just don't "get" the need to continue to fly the confederate flag.  *The war is over, folks.  The huge majority of folks around my area that fly that flag do so, not out of any sense of racism, but out of a sense of "redneck fashion".*  It's a symbol of heritage to some, I know.  It's also a symbol of much hate and bigotry to others.  It's how and why the flag was continued to be used after the civil war that causes it to be such a point of contention.  Ban it?  If it's being used as a symbol to intimidate, then, certainly get rid of it.  If it's some yokels that wear it because they think it just looks "cool" or they watched one too many episodes of The Dukes of Hazzard during the mullet days then I don't see a problem.  For me, I don't wear it, display it or fly it.  I wasn't around during the war so I see no need to show any connection to it.



That was my observation as well.

I am a "Yankee". I never thought of myself as a Yankee until I lived down south for 10 years. (North Carolina/Tennessee mountains, very rural). I was born and raised in Chicago, so I was from the midwest in my eyes. When I thought of Yankees, I thought of the northeast. In the area we moved to, _anyone_ not _born_ in one of the confederate states was a yankee, you could be from California and you're still a Yankee. I learned after moving that the civil war is alive and well for most southerners. 

The confederate flag was all over the place down there, but in the area I was in, it was all about the war, which they insist had nothing to do with slavery. I didn't see any racism in any of the people I knew, I'm not saying it isn't there, just that it wasn't in my interactions with anyone in our area. 

Where am I going with this? I don't know, lol. It does have more racial conotations than they would like to admit. One way or the other, they have got to let it go. These are the *United* States now, well, at least they're supposed to be.


----------



## Brian King (Aug 23, 2008)

*Jade Tigress wrote*



> I am a "Yankee". I never thought of myself as a Yankee until I lived down south for 10 years. (North Carolina/Tennessee mountains, very rural). I was born and raised in Chicago, so I was from the midwest in my eyes. When I thought of Yankees, I thought of the northeast. In the area we moved to, _anyone_ not _born_ in one of the confederate states was a yankee, you could be from California and you're still a Yankee. I learned after moving that the civil war is alive and well for most southerners.


 
LOL From my time in Missouri I found that I am also Yankee but as was explained to me there are two types of Yankees, those that are from born in any other state than a confederate state are a Yankee but those born in any other state than a confederate state and move to live into a confederate state are in fact a Damn Yankee. The War of Aggression or as it is often called the recent unpleasantness has not been forgotten yet there is peace regardless of flags and memories. That man can be terrible to each other should not be ignored or forgotten, and trying to erase all images that remind us of that fact, to replace those memories with warm fuzzy feelings is a mistake in my opinion. 
*Happiness** depends on disposition not circumstance*. (Martha Washington) Some will be offended at the most minor things because they find their happiness in being bitter and unhappy; those types should be pitied, but not necessarily taken to your heart, also my opinion.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Jade Tigress (Aug 23, 2008)

Brian said:


> *Jade Tigress wrote*
> 
> 
> LOL From my time in Missouri I found that I am also Yankee but as was explained to me there are two types of Yankees, those that are from born in any other state than a confederate state are a Yankee but those born in any other state than a confederate state and move to live into a confederate state are in fact a Damn Yankee. The War of Aggression or as it is often called the recent unpleasantness has not been forgotten yet there is peace regardless of flags and memories. That man can be terrible to each other should not be ignored or forgotten, and trying to erase all images that remind us of that fact, to replace those memories with warm fuzzy feelings is a mistake in my opinion.
> ...



So true. And I love the Damn Yankees part. 

That man can be so terrible to each other is indeed a sad fact. 

Peace. :asian:


----------



## elder999 (Aug 23, 2008)

Jade Tigress said:


> So true. And I love the Damn Yankees part.
> 
> That man can be so terrible to each other is indeed a sad fact.
> 
> Peace. :asian:


 
In Texas, on more than one occasion, people have used the "N" word around me, then excused themselves by pointing out that I wasn't one, I was a Yankee-and I don't think they meant that as a positive distinction, either....funny and sad.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 23, 2008)

yankee...... *giggle*


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 23, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> OMG!  I totally get you.  It was really shameful when all those gay people seceded from the union and started a war over their right to own others.
> 
> Although considering this is Tennessee, I doubt a rainbow flag would be allowed either.




that is crap, and you know it.

For one thing, i am speaking of each being offensive to some people, but one will be allowed and one wont.

second, The civil war was fought over states rights. The north had no high minded ideals when they wanted to abolish slavery, they did it to destroy the souths growing economic power since that economic power was based on agriculture.

Lincoin himself said that he didnt care one way or another about slavery, and if he could have kept the union together by keeping slavery, he would have.

I just love it when people spout the "they wanted to keep on owning other people" line.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 23, 2008)

Jade Tigress said:


> These are the *United* States now, well, at least they're supposed to be.


 
Actually, they're supposed to be the united *States* (separate, sovereign entities _voluntarily_ united for the common good; not one nation conveniently divided into smaller chunks all of which are subservient to the national government.)

BTW: it wasn't 'till I went to college that I found out that damn Yankee wasn't one word :rofl:


----------



## theletch1 (Aug 23, 2008)

Jade Tigress said:


> That was my observation as well.
> 
> I am a "Yankee". I never thought of myself as a Yankee until I lived down south for 10 years. (North Carolina/Tennessee mountains, very rural). I was born and raised in Chicago, so I was from the midwest in my eyes. When I thought of Yankees, I thought of the northeast. In the area we moved to, _anyone_ not _born_ in one of the confederate states was a yankee, you could be from California and you're still a Yankee. *I learned after moving that the civil war is alive and well for most southerners.*
> 
> ...


Some... not most.  It has been my experience that the folks that actually believe that the war is still on are pretty few.  Many folks have moved to the south in the last 164 years that were either from the north or from other countries.  That racism still exists is in the south is a sad fact but not exclusive to the south.  Truth be known the "Great war of Northern Aggression" was simply a failed rebellion like so many others that have taken place through out history.  Time to get over it folks (for those that still think the South will rise again).  The demographics and truthfully, the country, has changed so much that another rebellion will not be divided along cardinal points of the compass.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 23, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Truth be known the "Great war of Northern Aggression" was simply a failed rebellion like so many others that have taken place through out history.


 
Use of the term "rebellion" implies that the C.S.A. were trying to overthrow the U.S. government.  In reality, they _seceded_ (which was their right) and were invaded by the U.S. and forcibly "re-annexed."


----------



## theletch1 (Aug 23, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> Use of the term "rebellion" implies that the C.S.A. were trying to overthrow the U.S. government.  In reality, they _seceded_ (which was their right) and were invaded by the U.S. and forcibly "re-annexed."


I'll honorably concede the point to you, sir. :asian:


----------



## elder999 (Aug 23, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> . In reality, they _seceded_ (which was their right) and were invaded by the U.S. and forcibly "re-annexed."


 

Hmmmm...? I'd say that they exercised their right to secession, and were convinced to do otherwise.....


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 24, 2008)

Jade Tigress said:


> That was my observation as well.
> 
> I am a "Yankee". I never thought of myself as a Yankee until I lived down south for 10 years. (North Carolina/Tennessee mountains, very rural). I was born and raised in Chicago, so I was from the midwest in my eyes. When I thought of Yankees, I thought of the northeast. In the area we moved to, _anyone_ not _born_ in one of the confederate states was a yankee, you could be from California and you're still a Yankee. I learned after moving that the civil war is alive and well for most southerners.
> 
> ...


 
The Brits consider all of us over here "Yankees" LOL

Your comment about how "most southerners" consider the war still alive and well is grossly irresponsible, inaccurate, and not to mention just plain wrong.

I respect the fact that is your perception based on your personal experiences; however, I am a Southerner and also a veteran that traveled quite a bit. In my own experience, I witnessed more prejudice in non-southern states than not.  Case in point: Idaho is not a Southern state, yet it headquarters the skinhead/white supremist movement. That doesn't mean that all residents of Idaho are racist scum. Let's try to keep the proper perspective here. 

And again, the confederate flag has almost nothing to do with slavery. Anyone that is reasonably proficient in their study of history knows this. Emotions aside, the facts are the facts. 

Perhaps it's you that needs to "let it go" and read a little more on the principles upon which this country was founded. The "United States" meant just that. A group of independent states that were unified for the common good of all. 

That no longer is the case. We are now one country, under the rule of a central government which trumps any and all state decisions. So, in essence, we are no longer a group of "united states", but actuatally, and quite simply, a single nation subject to the rule of one government. 



elder999 said:


> In Texas, on more than one occasion, people have used the "N" word around me, then excused themselves by pointing out that I wasn't one, I was a Yankee-and I don't think they meant that as a positive distinction, either....funny and sad.


 
It is sad, agreed. 

However, I think that one must recognize that the use of the "N" word is perpetuated by the same people that claim they want it removed from our vocabulary! 

The argument that it's okay to use it as long as you're black is preposterous. It's use, in any way, only serves to keep it alive. 

I hold, that if one were truely serious about removing it's use from our vocabulary, that they would not use it themselves. 



Empty Hands said:


> OMG! I totally get you. It was really shameful when all those gay people seceded from the union and started a war over their right to own others.
> 
> Although considering this is Tennessee, I doubt a rainbow flag would be allowed either.


 
Gay people? Are you saying that the Southern States were gay and that's why they seceded? Or, are you trying to say only "gay" people would own a slave? 

Regardless, you should do your homework before making outrageous comments. 

The Civil War was not fought over the "...right to own others."  It's not too much to ask that one actually research a topic before actually posting a comment. I do understand that everyone does not have the benefit of a good education, but that doesn't mean one can't take the initiative to  research a topic a little before posting a comment. 

I do agree with the statement about accepting a "rainbow flag" these days; regardless of what state it's in. Homosexuals are still feared and shunned in most cases. 

As sad as that is, it is relative to the same ignorance that perports that the civl war was over slavery. 




KenpoTex said:


> Actually, they're supposed to be the united *States* (separate, sovereign entities _voluntarily_ united for the common good; not one nation conveniently divided into smaller chunks all of which are subservient to the national government.)
> 
> BTW: it wasn't 'till I went to college that I found out that damn Yankee wasn't one word :rofl:


 
Thanks for reminding us.  



theletch1 said:


> Some... not most. It has been my experience that the folks that actually believe that the war is still on are pretty few. Many folks have moved to the south in the last 164 years that were either from the north or from other countries. That racism still exists is in the south is a sad fact but not exclusive to the south. Truth be known the "Great war of Northern Aggression" was simply a failed rebellion like so many others that have taken place through out history. Time to get over it folks (for those that still think the South will rise again). The demographics and truthfully, the country, has changed so much that another rebellion will not be divided along cardinal points of the compass.


 
True. Racism exists world-wide, unfortunately. I too wish people would just "get over it." 

You'd think in the 21st century that things like differences in ethnicity, gender, or even eye color would be non-issues when dealing with each other. 

There are no two people who are exactly alike. The premise of prejudice is utterly illogical and counterproductive to the perpetuation of our species. It is a byproduct of ignorance just as the misconceptions that accompany it are. 



KenpoTex said:


> Use of the term "rebellion" implies that the C.S.A. were trying to overthrow the U.S. government. In reality, they _seceded_ (which was their right) and were invaded by the U.S. and forcibly "re-annexed."


 
True that also. Sadly, many a constitutional right has fallen to the wayside over the years. The "Bill of Rights" is no more than toilet paper these days, IMHO.

I personally feel the best way to deal with these issues and improve upon current conditions is through education. 

There's the "ideal world" and then there's the "really real world." Only through proper education of facts can one hope to develop an opinion based in reality. 

IMHO, I feel that too many opinions are based on personal emotion which is most often not based on facts. This results in skewed opinion, as evidenced in many of the responses on this particular thread, instead of opinion based on actual events and fact. 

I do not endorse racism or any other prejudice. My network of "friends" is diverse, and I do not define them by color, gender, or sexual preference. My "friends" earn my respect because of other factors not related to how they look, their gender, or where they come from. IMHO, that's how it should be.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 24, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> I respect the fact that is your perception based on your personal experiences; however, I am a Southerner and also a veteran that traveled quite a bit. In my own experience, I witnessed more prejudice in non-southern states than not.  Case in point: Idaho is not a Southern state, yet it headquarters the skinhead/white supremist movement. That doesn't mean that all residents of Idaho are racist scum. Let's try to keep the proper perspective here.


 Thank you for pointing THAT out. There is also the prejudice against Southerners and anyone rural, but, that is another thread.





> And again, the confederate flag has almost nothing to do with slavery. Anyone that is reasonably proficient in their study of history knows this. Emotions aside, the facts are the facts.


 A great point! It is sad that because some use the confederate flag while espousing racist crap, it gets branded as racist along with them, just as the Swastika, which has thousands of years of history gets lumped in with Hitler's NAZI's (NAZI is an acronym and thus, every letter should be capitalized, even if the spell check doesn't think so.) 





> Gay people? Are you saying that the Southern States were gay and that's why they seceded? Or, are you trying to say only "gay" people would own a slave?


 No, he was arguing against Twin Fist's assertion that while many find the confederate flag offensive, many also find the rainbow flag used by homosexual activists offensive, but, because the homosexual activists viewpoint is popular (or at least unpopular to confront) at this point in time, that their flag would never be forced out of any venue.





> Regardless, you should do your homework before making outrageous comments.
> 
> The Civil War was not fought over the "...right to own others."  It's not too much to ask that one actually research a topic before actually posting a comment. I do understand that everyone does not have the benefit of a good education, but that doesn't mean one can't take the initiative to  research a topic a little before posting a comment.
> 
> I do agree with the statement about accepting a "rainbow flag" these days; regardless of what state it's in. Homosexuals are still feared and shunned in most cases.


 Twin Fist's point however, is valid, many people find the overt displays of homosexual advocacy distasteful, but, anyone who dared challenge their flag would be branded a bigot, no matter what the facts actually are





> As sad as that is, it is relative to the same ignorance that perports that the civl war was over slavery.


 Sorry, I must disagree. That some are called bigots and (MUCH) worse because they feel the behaviors of homosexuals are abhorrent is completely different than those (idiots) who believe one race is better than another, be they white supremacists or La Raza





> Thanks for reminding us.
> True. Racism exists world-wide, unfortunately. I too wish people would just "get over it."
> 
> You'd think in the 21st century that things like differences in ethnicity, gender, or even eye color would be non-issues when dealing with each other.


 You darn blue, green, and brown eyed people are defective! We  Hazel eyed ar clearly superior


> There are no two people who are exactly alike. The premise of prejudice is utterly illogical and counterproductive to the perpetuation of our species. It is a byproduct of ignorance just as the misconceptions that accompany it are.


 You cannot tell a bad person from a good one on sight and to try to or encourage others to is wrong. 





> True that also. Sadly, many a constitutional right has fallen to the wayside over the years. The "Bill of Rights" is no more than toilet paper these days, IMHO.


Isn't it ironic how those people with their panties in such a twist over alleged violations of rights by the Bush administration have no problem curtailing the rights of the people to keep and bear arms? Gee, if they hadn't lobbied so hard and so long for anti-gun laws, perhaps they would be able to arm themselves against tyranny...





> I personally feel the best way to deal with these issues and improve upon current conditions is through education.
> 
> There's the "ideal world" and then there's the "really real world." Only through proper education of facts can one hope to develop an opinion based in reality.
> 
> IMHO, I feel that too many opinions are based on personal emotion which is most often not based on facts. This results in skewed opinion, as evidenced in many of the responses on this particular thread, instead of opinion based on actual events and fact.


 How do we fix that when so many teachers and professors  (Ward Churchill comes to mind) are so far left as to stretch the bounds of sanity?





> I do not endorse racism or any other prejudice. My network of "friends" is diverse, and I do not define them by color, gender, or sexual preference.


 Nor do I, nor should anyone.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 24, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> It is sad, agreed.
> 
> However, I think that one must recognize that the use of the "N" word is perpetuated by the same people that claim they want it removed from our vocabulary!
> 
> ...


 

I'll point out now, just as I did then, that it's not....okay....with....*me*.

*I* don't use it, don't perpetuate it, don't need to hear it, thank you.

Now, and without meaning to accuse you of anything, I'd like to point out how the phrasing _ perpetuated by "the same people"_ sounds, and ask what you meant: the "same people" in Dallas? the "same people" that rap?What, exactly?



Twin Fist said:


> yankee...... *giggle*




Yeah, I'm a Yankee-_born_ in Connecticut, raised in New York, part of a long line of people who lived in that part of the world and sailed on whaling ships-educated at a rather exclusive New England prep school.

In those respects, I have pretty much the same background as that "mighty Texan," George W. Bush...:lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 24, 2008)

Actually, a LOT of texans consider Bush a Yankee too. But at least he tries to be a texan.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Actually, a LOT of texans consider Bush a Yankee too. But at least he tries to be a texan.


 

_Pretends,_ TF-pretends to be a Texan...:lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 24, 2008)

and how are you qualified to make the distiction?

oh thats right, you're not


----------



## elder999 (Aug 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> and how are you qualified to make the distiction?
> 
> oh thats right, you're not


 
It was a joke-hence the laughing smiley.

However, none of the Texans I know would bother to go calling a 1600 acre hog farm a "ranch." :lol:


----------



## Jade Tigress (Aug 24, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Some... not most.  It has been my experience that the folks that actually believe that the war is still on are pretty few.  Many folks have moved to the south in the last 164 years that were either from the north or from other countries.  That racism still exists is in the south is a sad fact but not exclusive to the south.  Truth be known the "Great war of Northern Aggression" was simply a failed rebellion like so many others that have taken place through out history.  Time to get over it folks (for those that still think the South will rise again).  The demographics and truthfully, the country, has changed so much that another rebellion will not be divided along cardinal points of the compass.



That's very true and I know it. I based my observation on a personal experience in a very small geographic area. If there's one thing I'm not, it's well traveled. 


celtic_crippler said:


> Your comment about how "most southerners" consider the war still alive and well is grossly irresponsible, inaccurate, and not to mention just plain wrong.
> 
> I respect the fact that is your perception based on your personal experiences; however, I am a Southerner and also a veteran that traveled quite a bit. In my own experience, I witnessed more prejudice in non-southern states than not.  Case in point: Idaho is not a Southern state, yet it headquarters the skinhead/white supremist movement. That doesn't mean that all residents of Idaho are racist scum. Let's try to keep the proper perspective here.



Oh, I totally agree that racism is everywhere. My comment wasn't about racism, it was the opposite. In fact, I said no one I had met in my area showed any racism at all, I said the flag to them had nothing to do with that. 

Alive and well...what do I mean by that? That the South is still fighting a war? No. I mean it's a totally different perspective, the war is very close to their hearts. When was the last time a Northern state did a war reenactment? Schools spend much more time teaching on the war in the area I was in compared to what I had growing up. When I went to school it was a small chapter. 

Alive and well = close to the heart. 





celtic_crippler said:


> And again, the confederate flag has almost nothing to do with slavery.



I know, that's what I said.

I'm sorry for any offense, didn't mean to come across that way. Peace. :asian:


----------



## theletch1 (Aug 24, 2008)

JT, no offense taken and certainly no apologies needed.  Perception creates our realities.

As for the last several posts before that one... how did we go from discussing the Confederate flag to "Bush bashing" and petty arguing?  I must have missed something.  Since my attention span this week is so short can we get back to the original topic.  There are plenty of other threads to generate RTMs in.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 24, 2008)

elder999 said:


> It was a joke-hence the laughing smiley.
> 
> However, none of the Texans I know would bother to go calling a 1600 acre hog farm a "ranch." :lol:



eh, as a city boy i cant really speak to that.....but 1600 acres is really not that much


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 24, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> Use of the term "rebellion" implies that the C.S.A. were trying to overthrow the U.S. government. In reality, they _seceded_ (which was their right) and were invaded by the U.S. and forcibly "re-annexed."


 
Just as a side note.  It was acutally a war of southern aggression.  Lincoln stated that he had no interest in fighting to keep the Union together originally, though he did say that he would use force to maintain federal property.  He wanted those involved in the seccession to willingly come back into the union.

It was actually an attack by the Confederate states upon Fort Sumter that was the first violent act of the war,


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 24, 2008)

Jade Tigress said:


> When was the last time a Northern state did a war reenactment? Schools spend much more time teaching on the war in the area I was in compared to what I had growing up. When I went to school it was a small chapter.
> 
> Alive and well = close to the heart.
> 
> ...


 
Though I don't participate in reenactments, I know a fella that does. He became good friends with a fellow from MASSACHUSETTS that came down with a group to represent the Union Army's 54th Massachusetts (which was comprised mostly of blacks.) So they do participate but since I don't recall any battles taking place in Massachusetts, that' probably why the reencactments don't take place there. The usually take place on the actual battlegrounds. 

The Civil War and the events that led up to it are very important and its ramifications are still being felt today (like every time the Fed's tell a State it can or can't do something.) If your school treated these events as  a footnote more-or-less, then they did you a huge disservice and you should demand your tax money back that they claimed went to fund education. 

BTW, no offense taken. 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Just as a side note. It was acutally a war of southern aggression. Lincoln stated that he had no interest in fighting to keep the Union together originally, though he did say that he would use force to maintain federal property. He wanted those involved in the seccession to willingly come back into the union.
> 
> It was actually an attack by the Confederate states upon Fort Sumter that was the first violent act of the war,


 
When our country was still governed by the Constitution, states had the right to seceed. Fort Sumter is located in South Carolina, and the people there wanted Union troops out once they seceeded. It only became "aggressive" when union troops would not leave. If I came and sat down in your living room and refused to leave, would you not feel justifed in removing me forcibly? 

BTW, the only casualty that occured was because a cannon didn't fire properly killing a Union soldier. You can read more about the event here if you like -> http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 24, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> Just as a side note. It was acutally a war of southern aggression. Lincoln stated that he had no interest in fighting to keep the Union together originally, though he did say that he would use force to maintain federal property. He wanted those involved in the seccession to willingly come back into the union.
> 
> It was actually an attack by the Confederate states upon Fort Sumter that was the first violent act of the war,


 


			
				celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> When our country was still governed by the Constitution, states had the right to seceed. Fort Sumter is located in South Carolina, and the people there wanted Union troops out once they seceeded. It only became "aggressive" when union troops would not leave. If I came and sat down in your living room and refused to leave, would you not feel justifed in removing me forcibly?
> 
> BTW, the only casualty that occured was because a cannon didn't fire properly killing a Union soldier. You can read more about the event here if you like -> http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm


 
and, IIRC, Lincoln had actually agreed to remove the US troops from the fort.  The CSA did not attack until Lincoln tried to _resupply_ it.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 25, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *celtic_crippler*
> _When our country was still governed by the Constitution, states had the right to seceed. Fort Sumter is located in South Carolina, and the people there wanted Union troops out once they seceeded. It only became "aggressive" when union troops would not leave. If I came and sat down in your living room and refused to leave, would you not feel justifed in removing me forcibly?
> 
> BTW, the only casualty that occured was because a cannon didn't fire properly killing a Union soldier. You can read more about the event here if you like -> http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm_


 
Although I understand the sentiment, the analogy doesnt exactly translate.

It would be more akin to you allowing me to have full rights in a bedroom I rent (a place exclusively set aside for my own use, and for which I pay), then to someone just coming willy-nilly into a living room.  Even modern law states that you cannot arbitrarily just kick someone out, at least without some type of arrangement, whether that be reasonable notice.

Now, having read the link provided, it puts things in an interesting perspective.  It appears to me that Lincoln made a gentlemens agreement with South Carolina not to reinforce Fort Sumter, which he, apparently, subsequently broke.  Although not legal binding, it makes one understand how one could see why they would call it Northern Aggression.

Still, being a Black man in America, I am certainly glad that they did.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 25, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> it makes one understand how one could see why they would call it Northern Aggression.


 well, that and the fact that the U.S. basically raped the southern states both during and after the war...Sherman's March and of course, the "Reconstruction" just to name a couple of examples.  In fact, I would say that the "anti-northern" sentiment is due more to the reconstruction than to the war itself.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 25, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> As for the last several posts before that one... how did we go from discussing the Confederate flag to "Bush bashing" and petty arguing? I must have missed something. Since my attention span this week is so short can we get back to the original topic. There are plenty of other threads to generate RTMs in.


 
I dont think Ive ever, even once, accepted the status quo, although Ive tried mightily hard to fit in, at times. When I was in boarding school, I tried to be what they wanted me to be, mostly to please my parents. Although I received an excellent education, I never had much respect for a few  of my teachers. So many of them preached one thing and practiced another. My rebel nature often put me at odds with them, even though they held all the power. 

I once got into trouble for referring to the communion wafers in chapel as Christ Krispies. I avoided punishment  by explaining that I was referring to the wafers before they were put on the altar to become the Body of Christ. I thought it was a witty comparison; the authorities did not. Another time, I took a holy card of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and autographed it to a classmate, who always laughed at my jokes. I wrote on the holy card, To Lionel, with best wishes, Jesus. He laughed so hard that the teacher walked to the back of the class and confiscated the holy card. Lionel didnt tell on me, but I confessed so that he wouldnt get in trouble. 

My piece de resistance came in  a religion class one day. The priest who taught that class religion had, shall we say, some issues with alcohol. He stumbled and mumbled a lot. In addition, he absolutely detested me. Guess hed never heard of the black Irish. :lol: Actually, he probably had more problems with my dad being a priest as well, than anything else-as wel as his class coming easily to me. One boring day, he was going on and on about some obscure point in the Old Testament, and I raised my hand to ask a question. I said, Father, is that similar to what happened in the 2nd chapter of the Book of Hezekiah? He mumbled, Why, yes it is. See what you can do when you apply yourself, Mr. Cuffee. I replied, Well Father, the only problem is that theres no such book in the Bible. Hezekiah was a king, listed in the Old Testament. In addition to almost being expelled, I became a legend because of that incident. It was a hollow victory though, for I realized it was no big deal to trick someone who was already brain dead. Despite my sometimes irreverent sense of humor, I was always very serious about my search to experience God. It was, and still is, the most important thing in my life.

Im still a rebel. One of my hobbies is exposing the intolerance of the multicultural, tolerance terrorists. One of them recently admonished a coworker and friend for having a Confederate flag belt buckle. My friend told him he also had a big flag on his wall at home. _Its offensive,_ the other fellow whined, looking to me (given my skin tone) for support. I said,

 Lets take a politically correct tour of *my* home. Ive got a beautiful Aztec sun calendar I bought in Mexico. For hundreds of years the Aztecs had slaves and ripped the beating hearts out of mens chests as human sacrifices. They often boiled and ate the remains. Should I take down my Aztec sun calendar? Please let me know. I also have a Mexican flag. For years the Mexican government in Chihuahua paid a bounty, in gold, for Apache scalps. Apache men, women, and children were slaughtered and their scalps displayed in front of the cathedral in Chihuahua. Should I remove my Mexican flag? For almost ninety years, slaves were held under the very same Stars and Stripes many people have plastered all over everything today. So, the Confederate flag is offensive? Do me a favor. Go ask the Sioux what flag was flying when they were massacred at Wounded Knee; go ask Geronimo what flag was flying as his people were hunted down like wild animals in New Mexico and Arizona; go ask Sitting Bull which flag they were waving when they murdered him; go ask Mexico which flag was flying when they were invaded, and two-thirds of their country was stolen. I think youll discover that the Confederate flag was nowhere in sight, and that it was the same flag I fly in front of my home every day. Remove the board from your own eye before you try to remove a splinter from someone elses.

Im writing about this to show that things are not always what they seem. Intolerant, insensitive people preach tolerance and sensitivity, but dont practice it. Their allegiance is not to truth. Their allegiance is to the currently popular, politically correct issue. Ive learned that truth is seldom popular. Truth is often missing from politics and religion. It is, however, essential to spirituality-and to living. Try being a rebel, once in a while. The trouble youll get into will be well worth it, when you get to see those politically correct phonies turn purple.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 25, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> again, the confederate flag has almost nothing to do with slavery. Anyone that is reasonably proficient in their study of history knows this.



You may well feel that the the confederate flag had almost nothing to do with slavery in the 1860s, but today it is certainly interpreted that way (rightly or wrongly). An obvious nod to that fact was the reaction of the Duke boys in the new "Dukes of Hazzard" movie to seeing it on their car. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia entry on the flag:



> The display of the Confederate flag remains a highly controversial and emotional topic, generally because of disagreement over the nature of its symbolism. Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism


Your repeated comments about knowledge of history are simply off-base, even if one accepts your points (and I think they too can be contested). If you call someone a lesbian, you're not calling her a resident of the isle of Lesbos, even though that's the historical meaning of the term. History is not always the best guide, I'm afraid.--that's just a saying

I am not usually very keen on banning symbols but I can see where a school might need to restrict images like this to provide a learning environment that isn't oppressive and to maintain good order.



> The Civil War was not fought over the "...right to own others."


Well, it was fought over states' rights...one of which was disproportionately important to the Southern states. Let's rely on the unreliable Wikipedia again:



> The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict inevitable.


The Civil War had many causes, but slavery was the wedge that drove the Northern and Southern states apart. The confederate battle flag was and remains a potent symbol of this history. Wearing it isn't always ill-intentioned but is surely inflammatory.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 25, 2008)

So, I had a brief talk with my mom about this conversation, and my viewpoint, and she had only one thing to say, which I'll put here:



			
				the Mother said:
			
		

> Aaron Jeffrey, it's good that you can feel that way, and have reached that kind of conclusion, but I want you to remember that when we marched on Selma and Washington with Dr. King, there were people trying to stop us, there were people trying to *kill* us, and that damned flag is the flag they were waving whenever and wherever  they saw us.....


----------



## Big Don (Aug 25, 2008)

arnisador said:


> You may well feel that the the confederate flag had almost nothing to do with slavery in the 1860s, but today it is certainly interpreted that way (rightly or wrongly).


When people's views are so far from what is real, it is the responsibility of others to at least try to educate them, about what is or isn't fact.





> If you call someone a lesbian, you're not calling her a resident of the isle of Lesbos, even though that's the historical meaning of the term.


 Michael Chicklis is my favorite Lesbian. Half his family are Lesbians.





> I am not usually very keen on banning symbols but I can see where a school might need to restrict images like this to provide a learning environment that isn't oppressive and to maintain good order.


 Would a Star of David emblazoned with the name Hitler be acceptable? Of course not, but the Christian symbol of the stylized fish, adorned with feet and emblazoned with the name Darwin, somehow is. Neither one is respectful, but, only the one making fun of Christianity is acceptable in polite society.





> Well, it was fought over states' rights...one of which was disproportionately important to the Southern states. Let's rely on the unreliable Wikipedia again:
> 
> The Civil War had many causes, but slavery was the wedge that drove the Northern and Southern states apart. The confederate battle flag was and remains a potent symbol of this history.


 Sure it does, to those who do not and will not learn what the war was actually about, but, should the fact that some are ignorant penalize others?





> Wearing it isn't always ill-intentioned but is surely inflammatory.


Especially to those folks who are determined to be offended.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 26, 2008)

arnisador said:


> You may well feel that the the confederate flag had almost nothing to do with slavery in the 1860s, but today it is certainly interpreted that way (rightly or wrongly). An obvious nod to that fact was the reaction of the Duke boys in the new "Dukes of Hazzard" movie to seeing it on their car. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia entry on the flag:


 
I don't believe I argued anything about how people view it today. History is...like...you know...in the past. 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Your repeated comments about knowledge of history are simply off-base, even if one accepts your points (and I think they too can be contested). If you call someone a lesbian, you're not calling her a resident of the isle of Lesbos, even though that's the historical meaning of the term. History is not always the best guide, I'm afraid.--that's just a saying


 
My comments are off base and you're citing Wiki as your source....alrighty then. And how do you know I'm not referring to the isle of Lesbos? You don't...and that's my point. Unless you're the famous mystic Ka-Zamm and can read my mind...quick! What am I holding in my right hand? 

"History is not always the best guide?" Hmmmm....I wonder if it's thinking like that which consistantly dooms us to repeating the same mistakes over and over again. How's the sayin' go? ....those that don't learn from it are doomed to repeat it. But what do I know...I'm way off base. 



arnisador said:


> I am not usually very keen on banning symbols but I can see where a school might need to restrict images like this to provide a learning environment that isn't oppressive and to maintain good order.


 
Let's take anything and everything out of the schools that might be offensive, regardless of how they may apply to learning. Now...what shall we teach? Nope, can't do math...the plus (+) sign looks too much like a cross and I am offended by Christian symbols.  



arnisador said:


> Well, it was fought over states' rights...one of which was disproportionately important to the Southern states. Let's rely on the unreliable Wikipedia again:
> 
> The Civil War had many causes, but slavery was the wedge that drove the Northern and Southern states apart. The confederate battle flag was and remains a potent symbol of this history. Wearing it isn't always ill-intentioned but is surely inflammatory.


 
The abolitionist movement was actually small at the time....in all states. Most of the argument over slavery wasn't over an *idea as noble as treating fellow human beings in a human fashion*. (Dead horse cries for mercy)

It was over how they would be counted as part of the population in regards to representation in the senate which in turn would affect who had the most power; the Industrial North or the Agricultural South. This tied into several issues, quite possibly the most important being the affect on tarrifs. (Look up 3/5 Compromise)

So, to say the Civil War was about slavery is true...but in what regards is usually left unsaid...especially in public school. Most folks don't learn the actual details unless they take their education further. 

I understand that "symbols" upset people, but it's usually because of an individual, or group of individuals experience with that symbol as evidenced in elder999's mother's case cited above. 

For every symbol, I gaurantee there is somebody somewhere that is offended by it. We have become so thin-skinned in this country that you can't break wind without being served a subpena to appear in court. Hey... you never know... smells could be next on the list of "offensive" things being banned or outlawed. 

Unless you can prove that confederate flags are being manufactured for the sole purpose of being used to strangle folks, what's the harm? So what if it's flying in someones front yard? Is that harming anyone? Consider it a blessing that there's something out front letting you know that a person lives there that you may want to avoid so you don't go up to the front door selling them Black Panther Party Favors. 

If the same time and effort it takes to organize people to lobby to have a symbol removed were spent actually combating ignorance or the actual organizations that used the symbol to perpetrate hate crimes then something might actually get accomplished. 

...it's not the symbol that's bad....it's the organizations that use them for haneous purposes that are bad. I would think one's time would be better spent focusing on them instead.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 26, 2008)

Ah, the romantic notion of the genteel Old South. I don't share your nostalgia for it. I agree with you that the three-fifths compromise was where things came to a head, but continuing to insist that things mean what you'd like them to mean rather than what they've come to mean doesn't change the state of affairs in 2008.

Let's look at the practical matter that's actually at hand here--a school wants to ban the flag because they believe it incites racial tensions, and they've already had race-related problmes at the school that include a fight(s) and civil rights complaint(s). The judge agreed that the school could take this step to enforce order. It's clear what the symbol means there; banning it is much more effective than your plan to educate everyone about why your view of the symbol is actually more correct now because you feel it was more correct almost 150 years ago, or to get organizations using the flag for heinous purposes to use a different symbol instead. Neither of those seem very workable to me.

_Mathematics _actually meant _astrology _for a while. Perhaps we should lobby schools to stop teaching math. on the grounds that it's a pseudo-science?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> that is crap, and you know it.
> 
> For one thing, i am speaking of each being offensive to some people, but one will be allowed and one wont.



It's not crap, and *you *know it.  There is no comparison of offense between the Rainbow flag and the Confederate flag.  One is a plea for acceptance, the other is a flag of treason and slavery.  It is mealy mouthed nonsense to equate the two by saying that "some people are offended" by either one.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> Gay people? Are you saying that the Southern States were gay and that's why they seceded? Or, are you trying to say only "gay" people would own a slave?



That's what you got out of the exchange?  Remarkable.



Twin Fist said:


> second, The civil war was fought over states rights....I just love it when people spout the "they wanted to keep on owning other people" line.





celtic_crippler said:


> The Civil War was not fought over the "...right to own others."  It's not too much to ask that one actually research a topic before actually posting a comment.



To celtic: physician, heal thyself.

To both:
From the official declarations of secession from:
Texas
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
Georgia
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Mississippi
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world."
and for extra essentialist fun which would have been of great surprise to Southern farmers;
"...and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun."

What you apologists always seem to forget, assuming you ever bothered to check for all the exhortations to "study" and "research," is that the secessionists themselves list impositions on slavery as their main reason for going to war.  Sure, the war was about "State's Rights", the right of each state to legalize slavery.  Anyone that argues otherwise is ignorant of the material documents or has an agenda.


----------



## Lynne (Aug 26, 2008)

I'm from Virginia.  Growing up in the 60's and 70's was a time or racial strife.  Integration began during my high school years and we had racial riots at the end of every school year, including 1975 when I graduated.

Even today, there are segregated neighborhoods in Virginia and you had better not step foot into those neighborhoods if you want to live.  Racism is alive and well within all skin colors.

I can understand why black Americans would be offended by the Confederate flag but most people who fly the Confederate flag are proud of their heritage, that they are Southerners.  They are not proud of slavery and think it is and was an abomination.  Heck, my family came to Virginia in the 1600's. We are descendents of Thomas Lord Culpeper.  My family is just a proud Southern family.  I don't think they've ever flown the Confederate flag but I wouldn't be surprised if they do someday.  Some are members of the Daughters of Confederacy.

Now, I live in New York.  My next door neighbors have flown the Confederate flag.  They are not from the South.  In their case, I think it's redneck fashion.  There are rednecks everywhere you go - whether Georgia or Maine.  Of course, they act and drive like asses.  The Confederate flag "seems" to go hand-in-hand with those kinds of people.  But this is a stereotype.  It isn't always true that someone flying the Confederate flag is a rascist ***.

The Confederate flag is certainly controversial.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 26, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Ah, the romantic notion of the genteel Old South. I don't share your nostalgia for it. I agree with you that the three-fifths compromise was where things came to a head, but continuing to insist that things mean what you'd like them to mean rather than what they've come to mean doesn't change the state of affairs in 2008.
> 
> Let's look at the practical matter that's actually at hand here--a school wants to ban the flag because they believe it incites racial tensions, and they've already had race-related problmes at the school that include a fight(s) and civil rights complaint(s). The judge agreed that the school could take this step to enforce order. It's clear what the symbol means there; banning it is much more effective than your plan to educate everyone about why your view of the symbol is actually more correct now because you feel it was more correct almost 150 years ago, or to get organizations using the flag for heinous purposes to use a different symbol instead. Neither of those seem very workable to me.
> 
> _Mathematics _actually meant _astrology _for a while. Perhaps we should lobby schools to stop teaching math. on the grounds that it's a pseudo-science?


 
 I guess symbols and forum posts share one thing in common; people will read into them whatever they please. 

Things do come to mean what people (usually the majority) want them to mean.....that's how they come to mean something different than their initial meaning.  The swastika was not always associated with Natzi's. It CAME to mean...ah screw it. LOL ...is their any flesh left on that horse? 

I'm not arguing that a school should or shouldn't fly a confederate flag. My point is people place too much importance on symbols. It's ridiculous. This in not my opinion or view, it is a fact. Symbols only have power because people give them power. 

....if a hate group decided to paint the Playboy Bunny symbol on the houses of a specific group, would you then say that The Hef' was the devil?  What am I sayin'....you probably would.  




Empty Hands said:


> It's not crap, and *you *know it. There is no comparison of offense between the Rainbow flag and the Confederate flag. One is a plea for acceptance, the other is a flag of treason and slavery. It is mealy mouthed nonsense to equate the two by saying that "some people are offended" by either one.


 
I personally am not offended by either flag and I think you're missing the point because your reason is clouded by emotion.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> I personally am not offended by either flag and I think you're missing the point because your reason is clouded by emotion.



I never said you *were *offended by either flag.  I'm not sure I should accept your judgment of my emotional state.  Do you even know what point I am making?  After all, you thought I was saying all Southerners were gay.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> It's not crap, and *you *know it. There is no comparison of offense between the Rainbow flag and the Confederate flag. One is a plea for acceptance, *the other is a flag of treason and slavery*. It is mealy mouthed nonsense to equate the two by saying that "some people are offended" by either one.


 How do you support your claim that the Confederate flag is a flag of _treason_?  What exactly was treasonous about the actions of the southern states?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 26, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> How do you support your claim that the Confederate flag is a flag of _treason_? What exactly was treasonous about the actions of the southern states?


 



> Article III, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution : Treason against the United States shall consist only in *levying war against them*, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


 
During the American Civil War, no judicial determination was ever made as to whether or not leaders and supporters of the Confederacy were guilty of treason against the U.S. http://www.history.com/encyclopedia/article.jsp?link=FWNE.fw..da016400.aJefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, was indicted, but he never came to trial.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> How do you support your claim that the Confederate flag is a flag of _treason_?  What exactly was treasonous about the actions of the southern states?



The Supreme Court declared the foundation of the Confederacy as treason against the US in 1874.  Sprott vs. US.  No individual could or would be prosecuted however due to the pardon of 1868.

More generally, treason is defined in part in Article 3 Section 3 as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them...".  Part of the United States levied war against the other part, apart from any other arguments, leaving the case for treason easy to make.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> It's not crap, and *you *know it.  There is no comparison of offense between the Rainbow flag and the Confederate flag.  One is a plea for acceptance, the other is a flag of treason and slavery.  It is mealy mouthed nonsense to equate the two by saying that "some people are offended" by either one.



what YOU call a "plea for acceptance" a lot of people I know call "in your face confrontation"

you are not the final word on anything. You may have an opinion on what the stars and bars symbolizes, but it means nothing to anyone but YOU.

and yeah, sorry that the quite good example confuses you, or that you refuse to acknowledge that it is in fact a pretty good comparison, but that cant be helped.

BOTH are offensive to someone. But ONE will be allowed. 

WHY it is acceptable to offend someone but not someone else is the more interesting question


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> More generally, treason is defined in part in Article 3 Section 3 as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them...".  Part of the United States levied war against the other part, apart from any other arguments, leaving the case for treason easy to make.



BZZZZZZZ

wrong answer, thanks for playing.

The south left the union,and made no overt acts of aggression. That has already been established. The north invaded.THAT was the act of war bro.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> what YOU call a "plea for acceptance" a lot of people I know call "in your face confrontation"



Sure, the same people that think two gay lovers holding hands while they walk down the street is "flaunting their lifestyle".  I am not obligated to take the feelings of bigots as particularly noteworthy.  Even if it was "in your face confrontation" however, it would still not rise to the level of displaying the flags of the Confederacy.



Twin Fist said:


> you are not the final word on anything. You may have an opinion on what the stars and bars symbolizes, but it means nothing to anyone but YOU.



It symbolizes the Confederacy, that is without doubt.  The same Confederacy that went to war in order to preserve their "peculiar institution."  That is quite clear, as the historical record indicates.  Don't make me post more documents...



Twin Fist said:


> BOTH are offensive to someone. But ONE will be allowed.
> WHY it is acceptable to offend someone but not someone else is the more interesting question



Ham sandwiches are offensive to some people.  Do you think they really should be banned?  Of course you don't.  So then the really interesting question to me is why you think gay people and traitorous slave holders are equivalent.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> BZZZZZZZ
> 
> wrong answer, thanks for playing.



The Supreme Court didn't think so in 1874...



Twin Fist said:


> The south left the union,and made no overt acts of aggression. That has already been established. The north invaded.THAT was the act of war bro.



They resupplied a fort.  Certainly, construing that as an "invasion" would require quite a bit of convincing.  What doesn't require convincing though is that the South fired the first shots.  From the beginning then, your thesis faces an uphill battle.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> BOTH are offensive to someone. But ONE will be allowed.
> 
> WHY it is acceptable to offend someone but not someone else is the more interesting question



The answer is this: The Rainbow flag doesn't mean that violence is imminent...certainty not from those flying it. The concern in this case was that the Confederate flag either indicated that violence was forthcoming from those flying it, or incited those seeing it to violence.

You don't often hear about armed groups of homosexuals attacking people under the rainbow flag. But look here for what comes to my mind when I read a discussion like this.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 26, 2008)

arnisador said:


> The answer is this: The Rainbow flag doesn't mean that violence is imminent...certainty not from those flying it. The concern in this case was that the Confederate flag either indicated that violence was forthcoming from those flying it, or incited those seeing it to violence.
> 
> You don't often hear about armed groups of homosexuals attacking people under the rainbow flag. But look here for what comes to my mind when I read a discussion like this.


A bigger load of crap than I've seen posted in a long time. According to your post, anyone flying a rainbow flag is peace loving and harmless, and anyone flying a Confederate flag a dangerous loon. Two prejudiced statements, one low price.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 27, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> The Supreme Court declared the foundation of the Confederacy as treason against the US in 1874.  Sprott vs. US.  No individual could or would be prosecuted however due to the pardon of 1868.
> 
> More generally, treason is defined in part in Article 3 Section 3 as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them...".  *Part of the United States levied war against the other part, apart from any other arguments, leaving the case for treason easy to make*.



Negatory...The war was fought between two sovereign nations.  The states did not band together in order to overthrow the government (which, depending on the outcome may or may not have been considered treason).  They each seceded individually and formed the Confederate States of America.  The C.S.A. only resorted to violence when Lincoln tried to resupply a fort on southern soil that he had previously agreed to relinquish.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 27, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I never said you *were *offended by either flag. I'm not sure I should accept your judgment of my emotional state. Do you even know what point I am making? After all, you thought I was saying all Southerners were gay.


 
You don't have to accept my judgment. As of right now citizens of the US still have a few rights left....But who knows what the future holds? At the rate we're going it could be quite different years from now . Then what will you do? 

When you set a precedent for one group, it will apply to all groups in similar fashion; regardless of your personal opinion of the matter. That's the point I think you're missing. 



KenpoTex said:


> How do you support your claim that the Confederate flag is a flag of _treason_? What exactly was treasonous about the actions of the southern states?


 
I guess it's treasonous to excercise your rights. Wait a minute...what rights? We don't need no stinkin' rights! 



Empty Hands said:


> The Supreme Court declared the foundation of the Confederacy as treason against the US in 1874. Sprott vs. US. No individual could or would be prosecuted however due to the pardon of 1868.
> 
> More generally, treason is defined in part in Article 3 Section 3 as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them...". Part of the United States levied war against the other part, apart from any other arguments, leaving the case for treason easy to make.


 
Declared it AFTER the fact, that doesn't mean that what the Southern States did at the time they did it was treason. To the victors go the spoils, so to speak. 

...and thus continued the slow death of independant state's rights...sigh.

It's actually kind of a slap in the face to even call our country the "United" states any more. Especially when they were forced together akin to the way the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics were forced to stay together. 



Empty Hands said:


> Sure, the same people that think two gay lovers holding hands while they walk down the street is "flaunting their lifestyle". I am not obligated to take the feelings of bigots as particularly noteworthy. Even if it was "in your face confrontation" however, it would still not rise to the level of displaying the flags of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So if they take a differing view from yours that makes them a bigot? 

That's your opinion and others are no more obligated to take yours as "noteworthy" as you are of thiers. However, if you expect them to do so you should at least extend to them the same respect; even if you think it's wrong. Otherwise, no compromise would ever be reached in any situation regardless of what the subject is. 

Just as you think banning ham sandwiches is ridiculous, if enough people banned together to ban them (ham is pork after all, so it's not that far fetched....pork is typically banned in many Muslim nations) it could happen. Then what? I guess we'll have to eat p-nut butter. LOL 

Forcing morality on people doesn't work. It only begets more negative results. If no one is risking physical harm, financial hardship, etc as a result of anothers actions (like flying a flag, or holding hands) then let it go. 

The only valid point made is that by flying this "symbol" it resulted in fights. That would be a valid argument, but in the same vein...the rainbow flag, regardless of what it means to YOU, has resulted in the same. So, I digress....if you ban one...you have to ban the other. 




Empty Hands said:


> The Supreme Court didn't think so in 1874...
> 
> 
> 
> They resupplied a fort. Certainly, construing that as an "invasion" would require quite a bit of convincing. What doesn't require convincing though is that the South fired the first shots. From the beginning then, your thesis faces an uphill battle.


 
Suppling it with arms and not leaving is an act of war. If Mexico started shipping guns and tanks to all the illegals in the U.S. I suppose you'd just let that go.  



arnisador said:


> The answer is this: The Rainbow flag doesn't mean that violence is imminent...certainty not from those flying it. The concern in this case was that the Confederate flag either indicated that violence was forthcoming from those flying it, or incited those seeing it to violence.
> 
> You don't often hear about armed groups of homosexuals attacking people under the rainbow flag. But look here for what comes to my mind when I read a discussion like this.


 
Again, that's what it means to YOU. Is it that difficult to be open minded enough to admit that it may not mean the same thing to others? Just playing Devil's Advocate. 

I don't have a problem with the flag, I do have a problem with the guy in the sheet though. Especially since, if it weren't for him we may not even be having this discussion. LOL

Do you think the Confederate Flag on a bumper sticker has the same affect as one being carried by a dude in a sheet? 



Big Don said:


> A bigger load of crap than I've seen posted in a long time. According to your post, anyone flying a rainbow flag is peace loving and harmless, and anyone flying a Confederate flag a dangerous loon. Two prejudiced statements, one low price.


 
It appears that some feel one prejudice is justified and one is not. 

*big·ot*




[*big*-_uh_





t] 
_noun _a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. 


hmmmmm.....



KenpoTex said:


> Negatory...The war was fought between two sovereign nations. The states did not band together in order to overthrow the government (which, depending on the outcome may or may not have been considered treason). They each seceded individually and formed the Confederate States of America. The C.S.A. only resorted to violence when Lincoln tried to resupply a fort on southern soil that he had previously agreed to relinquish.


 
I don't think some get the concept of the states being soveriegn at one time. If we can't get past the whole "Evil South" mentality there's no hope in actually having an intelligent discussion over the actual facts and history leading up to and after the Civil War.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 27, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> So if they take a differing view from yours that makes them a bigot?


 Well, duh, where have you been?





> Just as you think banning ham sandwiches is ridiculous, if enough people banned together to ban them (ham is pork after all, so it's not that far fetched....pork is typically banned in many Muslim nations) it could happen. Then what? I guess we'll have to eat p-nut butter. LOL


 Remember the grocery store employees who were refusing to do ring up pork products (and shouting those who suggested they either do the job they were hired for, or get other jobs, down as bigots?)





> The only valid point made is that by flying this "symbol" it resulted in fights. That would be a valid argument, but in the same vein...the rainbow flag, regardless of what it means to YOU, has resulted in the same. So, I digress....if you ban one...you have to ban the other.


Which brings us to the famous Slippery Slope, where do we stop banning things? There is NO right NOT to be offended! 





> Suppling it with arms and not leaving is an act of war. If Mexico started shipping guns and tanks to all the illegals in the U.S. I suppose you'd just let that go.


 Are you sure they wouldn't, they ignore and excuse the crime of illegal immigration and denounce raids that round up people in the country as racist?





> Again, that's what it means to YOU. Is it that difficult to be open minded enough to admit that it may not mean the same thing to others? Just playing Devil's Advocate.


 Oh, but your rights and opinions are not important, if you don't agree. In fact if you don't vote ("Early and often" to quote Al Capone) for Obama you are a racist. So, the 18 Million people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, all racists





> Do you think the Confederate Flag on a bumper sticker has the same affect as one being carried by a dude in a sheet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Don't state facts, you'll just confuse them.





> I don't think some get the concept of the states being soveriegn at one time. If we can't get past the whole "Evil South" mentality there's no hope in actually having an intelligent discussion over the actual facts and history leading up to and after the Civil War.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 27, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> It's actually kind of a slap in the face to even call our country the "United" states any more. Especially when they were forced together akin to the way the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics were forced to stay together.


 
Honestly, a statement like this concerns me.



> if you ban one...you have to ban the other.[...]Again, that's what it means to YOU. Is it that difficult to be open minded enough to admit that it may not mean the same thing to others?


 
This is why we have judges, who consider the facts and render a decision. No judge has ruled that the Rainbow flag is a problem, but judges have held that the Confederate flag may be. _There is a difference_.



> I don't think some get the concept of the states being soveriegn at one time. If we can't get past the whole "Evil South" mentality there's no hope in actually having an intelligent discussion over the actual facts and history leading up to and after the Civil War.



Fair enough. But the subject is the flag's use in high schools in 2008, not the origins of the Civil War.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 27, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Honestly, a statement like this concerns me.


 Really? I find this much more troubling:





arnisador said:


> The answer is this: The Rainbow flag doesn't mean that violence is imminent...certainty not from those flying it. The concern in this case was that the Confederate flag either indicated that violence was forthcoming from those flying it, or incited those seeing it to violence.


But, that's just me.





> This is why we have judges, who consider the facts and render a decision. No judge has ruled that the Rainbow flag is a problem, but judges have held that the Confederate flag may be. _There is a difference_.


Yep, judges pandering to people like you.





> Fair enough. But the subject is the flag's use in high schools in 2008, not the origins of the Civil War.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 27, 2008)

arnisador said:


> This is why we have judges, who consider the facts and render a decision. No judge has ruled that the Rainbow flag is a problem, but judges have held that the Confederate flag may be. _There is a difference_.


 
You mean the same people who are answerable to no one are allowed to dictate what political speech is acceptable?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 27, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Honestly, a statement like this concerns me.


 
It should! Ah...alas progress. 





arnisador said:


> This is why we have judges, who consider the facts and render a decision. No judge has ruled that the Rainbow flag is a problem, but judges have held that the Confederate flag may be. _There is a difference_.


 
Give it time. Once they set that precedent it only takes a group bringing the next "symbol" into court to be outlawed. 





arnisador said:


> Fair enough. But the subject is the flag's use in high schools in 2008, not the origins of the Civil War.


 
Read the entire post...not just the origins but it's after effects. And it's use in schools and the way that symbol is percieved and acted upon is because of what again?  

An inanimate object has NO POWER, NONE, NADDA, ZILTCH. That flag ain't gonna come down off that pole and hurt anyone. It is not capable of concious thought or action. It is an inanimate object. It is only able to illicit an emotional response in an individual because said individual allows it to do so. So, in essence, who is more responsible for starting a fight over a flag? The flag or the person throwing the first punch?


----------



## arnisador (Aug 27, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> So, in essence, who is more responsible for starting a fight over a flag? The flag or the person throwing the first punch?



To the principal of the school, what does it matter? He doesn't have a whole police force at his command--he just has hundreds of rowdy teen-agers to manage.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 28, 2008)

arnisador said:


> To the principal of the school, what does it matter? He doesn't have a whole police force at his command--he just has hundreds of rowdy teen-agers to manage.


 
So dress them all in the same uniforms, make them all have the same hair-cuts, and remove anything that would indicate individuality including punishment for using any language other than proper english. Problem solved!


----------



## arnisador (Aug 28, 2008)

Or, use the system they _are _using...try to give them their freedom but balance it against their safety.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 28, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Or, use the system they _are _using...try to give them their freedom but balance it against their safety.


 
I have no problem with a *temporary* ban which is directly related to the public safety within the school, based on the emergent nature of the situation.

But, once the situation is settled down, normal rules should apply.


----------



## Brian King (Aug 29, 2008)

Elder999 (others may of course also offer their opinion and I hope that others do so)
Reading this and other threads I had a thought that became a question in my mind that brought about some interesting thoughts, so a quick question that you may be in a unique position to opinion on. I am hoping the discussion if one occurs may increase my understandings LOL no easy task.

This thread has touched on bigotry in various forms, from racism to elitism. I am wondering which is/has been more damaging to society, racism or elitism?

Thanks all
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Big Don (Aug 29, 2008)

Brian said:


> Elder999 (others may of course also offer their opinion and I hope that others do so)
> Reading this and other threads I had a thought that became a question in my mind that brought about some interesting thoughts, so a quick question that you may be in a unique position to opinion on. I am hoping the discussion if one occurs may increase my understandings LOL no easy task.
> 
> This thread has touched on bigotry in various forms, from racism to elitism. I am wondering which is/has been more damaging to society, racism or elitism?
> ...


Interesting question. Start a thread/


----------



## Brian King (Aug 29, 2008)

I have to admit to not starting a new thread for purely selfish reasons. I am changing the location of my school (moving 30 miles north), have a full time job plus a cleaning business not to mention the martial arts school which leaves little time (in the process of changing that hence the school move) Starting a thread would mean in my opinion having to take the time to follow and perhaps post multiple times in the thread, a commitment I cannot make right now. I think that the question falls along or at least close enough to this thread that I can piggy back this thread and still learn something without the necessary time commitment. See how selfish I can be.

Regards
Brian King


----------

