Teen Sues Over Confederate Flag Prom Dress

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.