Confederate Flags and all that jazz

[Purdue97]

More troubling than the continued use of the slippery slope fallacy in this thread is the argument that somehow the confederate flag does not symbolize oppression/slavery to a large group of people, including both whites and blacks.

I agree it does or did. I would also just add that flags mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I specifically remember the female college ball player that turned her back on the flag because she felt it symbolized American greed and colonialism(or power, not real sure). Even though it is America that gave her the chance to play ball in college.

I can and do agree that it should not be flown over US Govt building. Not so sure about museums-that is a bit different. But I agree with Kesweci-where does this seem to stop? The removal of all the images etc.

 

[kescwi]

1. I'm a little confused how flying the confederate flag on government property, or naming say a public school after the founder of the Klan (two separate high schools named after Nathan Forrest) or similar things are not driving wedges between people, but asking them to be removed is.

2. I'm a little confused how you get from these type of things to anyone who was a racist. It's not remotely difficult to draw a line at "don't name schools after the guy who started the Klan, or confederate generals" or don't name a national park after those folks or don't honor a treasonous secessionist army that fought in a war about slavery (on the wrong side). That line in no way has to include "everyone who ever owned slaves" or was "a racist."

Okay so your answer is the removal of all things confederate on federal, state and municipal property, remane schools, roads... named after anything confederate but simply being a racist or slave holder is allowed. If I understand you, rename anything Lee but don't rename anything Calhoun. That's fine, that's what I was asking for.

Treason, yes you said that earlier, nothing like judging history with the benefit of hindsight. But it's funny that at the time the U.S. military allowed officers to resign their commissions and return to the south unhindered to form the confederate army. When captured they were treated as soldiers of a legitimate army and after the war they were not held or charged with treason. Joseph Wheeler was a CSA general and then served in U.S. Army as a general during the Spanish Americam war. Just doesn't appear that those living it at the time saw it the same way you see it now.

 

[qazplm]

Okay so your answer is the removal of all things confederate on federal, state and municipal property, remane schools, roads... named after anything confederate but simply being a racist or slave holder is allowed. If I understand you, rename anything Lee but don't rename anything Calhoun. That's fine, that's what I was asking for.

Treason, yes you said that earlier, nothing like judging history with the benefit of hindsight. But it's funny that at the time the U.S. military allowed officers to resign their commissions and return to the south unhindered to form the confederate army. When captured they were treated as soldiers of a legitimate army and after the war they were not held or charged with treason. Joseph Wheeler was a CSA general and then served in U.S. Army as a general during the Spanish Americam war. Just doesn't appear that those living it at the time saw it the same way you see it now.

It wasn't an answer, it was a question, one you haven't answered.

Treason is objectively what it was. Of course, the American Revolution was also treason. The difference is, one of them wasn't about a fear of losing the right to subjugate human beings. That's not a hindsight thing. It wasn't a case of slavery bad? Who knew?

Yes, the North, in an attempt to calm things down and reform the union tried to be gracious in it's approach towards the South. I'm sure a scorned married partner who accepts their cheating spouse back does the same, that doesn't mean the cheating didn't happen. So you are making some logical leaps about how they saw it. You also don't appear to know that the Civil War occurred around the same time as the first attempt to create "rules of war" by Franz Lieber. That included how you treated captured Soldiers, but it was also an attempt to civilize war for the first time in a real comprehensive way. So, yes part of that is not doing things like charging folks with treason (which again was tied to reconstruction and the attempt to "let things go" in order to reinstate order, and not as you argue that it wasn't really treason).

 

[Jedifick]

The victor writes the history books, and you sir, have memorized their party line.

None of what you are saying explains the many soldiers fighting for the south that were against slavery, or why the north had slave states, as well.

 

[qazplm]

The victor writes the history books, and you sir, have memorized their party line.

None of what you are saying explains the many soldiers fighting for the south that were against slavery, or why the north had slave states, as well.

Sure it does. Soldiers don't start wars, they fight them. Everyone was more tied to their state then their country back then, particularly in the South. Propaganda existed back then too. Why Soldiers fought says little to nothing about why leaders go to war. I went to Iraq. My thoughts on the way or why I went have nothing to do with why we attacked Iraq.

And for the 12th time, why the North fought, the fact that initially they were not fighting to end slavery has NOTHING to do with why the South went to war. You do realize two sides of a war can actually have different reasons for going to war right? Why Germany went to war with the US in WWII was based on different reasons from why the US went to war with Germany.

So yes, what I'm saying coexists just fine with anti-slavery Soldiers fighting for the South, or the North fighting to preserve the union, not to stop slavery.

The whole victors nonsense is always used by folks who don't like history and want to re-write it more favorably, but when folks are getting their civil war history from a money management website...

 

[boilergeek]

Keep it up and at some point you will need to get rid of the Stars and Stripes and that is not hyperbole, is there really much moral difference between slavery and what is considered genocide vis the American Indian?

Yes. There is a massive difference.

What happened with the American Indians can be viewed as a long series of battles between different "countries" in which one side was far superior in terms of military strength. It isn't much different than what the Romans did in extending their reach past their borders. This was considered completely acceptable in the world up until the time the League of Nations was created and effectively when Israel was created(see Israel/Palestine as the first major example of a country being asked to give back land they control militarily). The stronger army gets to set the borders. Plenty of countries came and went for thousands of years.

Compare that to the kidnapping of people, transporting them a world away, and then stripping them of all rights as humans and treating them equal to property, and then fighting a war with members of your own country to keep that right, and you see that they are absolutely nothing alike.

 

[kescwi]

It wasn't an answer, it was a question, one you haven't answered.

Treason is objectively what it was. Of course, the American Revolution was also treason. The difference is, one of them wasn't about a fear of losing the right to subjugate human beings. That's not a hindsight thing. It wasn't a case of slavery bad? Who knew?

Yes, the North, in an attempt to calm things down and reform the union tried to be gracious in it's approach towards the South. I'm sure a scorned married partner who accepts their cheating spouse back does the same, that doesn't mean the cheating didn't happen. So you are making some logical leaps about how they saw it. You also don't appear to know that the Civil War occurred around the same time as the first attempt to create "rules of war" by Franz Lieber. That included how you treated captured Soldiers, but it was also an attempt to civilize war for the first time in a real comprehensive way. So, yes part of that is not doing things like charging folks with treason (which again was tied to reconstruction and the attempt to "let things go" in order to reinstate order, and not as you argue that it wasn't really treason).

I have no problem with flags being taken down and renaming if it is what the community wants. attempting to scrub away history and telling people how they must view something, I'm don't agree with that.

 

[kescwi]

Yes. There is a massive difference.

What happened with the American Indians can be viewed as a long series of battles between different "countries" in which one side was far superior in terms of military strength. It isn't much different than what the Romans did in extending their reach past their borders. This was considered completely acceptable in the world up until the time the League of Nations was created and effectively when Israel was created(see Israel/Palestine as the first major example of a country being asked to give back land they control militarily). The stronger army gets to set the borders. Plenty of countries came and went for thousands of years.

Compare that to the kidnapping of people, transporting them a world away, and then stripping them of all rights as humans and treating them equal to property, and then fighting a war with members of your own country to keep that right, and you see that they are absolutely nothing alike.

Yes I agree, and that is my point, but I'm not certain you understand it. Forced deportation, massacring unarmed civilans... were perfectly acceptable, particularly when committed against what was viewed as an inferior race, so while we would see it as an unacceptable and deplorable crime against humanity today, we aren't scrubbing symbols of that time away, yet.

 

[boilergeek]

Yes I agree, and that is my point, but I'm not certain you understand it. Forced deportation, massacring unarmed civilans... were perfectly acceptable, particularly when committed against what was viewed as an inferior race, so while we would see it as an unacceptable and deplorable crime against humanity today, we aren't scrubbing symbols of that time away, yet.

I understood your point, but unless it is the basic "everyone has done bad things so we can't judge" then it isn't really a valid point.

What happened with the American Indians could be viewed as bad, or it could be viewed as normal. It's the natural progression of borders. The American Indians were fighting battles against themselves before getting outmatched by a new superior force. What happened to them was ultimately a land battle which they lost. I guess you could argue that the Europeans should have gotten to his land, said "Well, people are here" and headed home.

On the other hand, slavery was the literal kidnapping of people, turning them into property, treating them like garbage and forcing them to work to death with no rights whatsoever. The scale here is so much different. Every country has some things in it's history that is considered bad. It doesn't make them all equal.

 

[Beeazlebub]

I understood your point, but unless it is the basic "everyone has done bad things so we can't judge" then it isn't really a valid point.

What happened with the American Indians could be viewed as bad, or it could be viewed as normal. It's the natural progression of borders. The American Indians were fighting battles against themselves before getting outmatched by a new superior force. What happened to them was ultimately a land battle which they lost. I guess you could argue that the Europeans should have gotten to his land, said "Well, people are here" and headed home.

On the other hand, slavery was the literal kidnapping of people, turning them into property, treating them like garbage and forcing them to work to death with no rights whatsoever. The scale here is so much different. Every country has some things in it's history that is considered bad. It doesn't make them all equal.

You're underselling the plight of the indigenous peoples of the Americas by saying they were simply outmatched by a superior force. I don't see the scale of atrocities as being that much different.

 

[boilergeek]

You're underselling the plight of the indigenous peoples of the Americas by saying they were simply outmatched by a superior force. I don't see the scale of atrocities as being that much different.

I'm not underselling anything. They were forced to move and lost land. Many died during the conflict, and others unfortunately couldn't handle the new medical issues brought on by the expansion of people from different lands.

The slaves were literally kidnapped, taken to a new continent, stripped of all rights as a person, and worked to death. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have been a free American Indian than a slave on a plantation.

That isn't to say that the American Indians didn't also have it rough. The losing side of a land conflict always has struggles. They aren't anywhere on the same level though.

If you had a time machine, and could only stop one of these things:
1) Stop/End slavery
2) Stop/End the expansion of the Colonies/United States

Which do you choose?

I choose 1.

 

[Beeazlebub]

I'm not underselling anything. They were forced to move and lost land. Many died during the conflict, and others unfortunately couldn't handle the new medical issues brought on by the expansion of people from different lands.

The slaves were literally kidnapped, taken to a new continent, stripped of all rights as a person, and worked to death. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have been a free American Indian than a slave on a plantation.

That isn't to say that the American Indians didn't also have it rough. The losing side of a land conflict always has struggles. They aren't anywhere on the same level though.

If you had a time machine, and could only stop one of these things:
1) Stop/End slavery
2) Stop/End the expansion of the Colonies/United States

Which do you choose?

I choose 1.

Interesting framing in your scenario. What you call "expansion" could also be termed "genocide".

Do you choose Scylla or Charybdis?

The expansion of the colonies into indigenous territory was founded upon the belief that the "savages" were less than human, and they were treated as such. History is littered with atrocities committed under this framework.

 

[boilergeek]

Interesting framing in your scenario. What you call "expansion" could also be termed "genocide".

Do you choose Scylla or Charybdis?

The expansion of the colonies into indigenous territory was founded upon the belief that the "savages" were less than human, and they were treated as such. History is littered with atrocities committed under this framework.

I don't really see any counterargument here.

Saying many of the things that happened during the expansion of the Colonies/America doesn't mean that it was on the level of kidnapping, stripping away any rights of other human beings, and then working them to death.

As I laid out before, if you had the choice of either stopping slavery, or stopping the expansion of the United States, which would you choose? Quite obviously the answer is slavery.

 

[Beeazlebub]

I think you're using a poor argument to refute Kescwi's slippery slope.

My argument is that they were both so abjectly awful that it's difficult to discern which one is worse. You've made it clear that you can, but I don't buy your reasoning. In order to provide evidence for one or the other, we'd need to define our metrics & establish reliable data, and I'm not interested in spending a lot time on such a subject.

To simply say that the natives of this land lost a land war, and bad things happened as a result does no justice to the resulting complete eradication of many groups. Those who weren't eradicated were systematically pushed against their will into less and less desirable locations.

Both groups were victimized in part because of racist doctrine & religious dogma, and the similarities seem to outweigh the differences between the two events.

 

[boilergeek]

My argument is that they were both so abjectly awful that it's difficult to discern which one is worse. You've made it clear that you can, but I don't buy your reasoning. In order to provide evidence for one or the other, we'd need to define our metrics & establish reliable data, and I'm not interested in spending a lot time on such a subject.

My argument is that one is more abjectly awful than the other. One was, at it's core, not much different than most other border disputes between rival countries. The other was stripping human beings of their rights to be considered as humans.

It's like comparing what happens in war to what the Nazis did. Both have bad things about them and cause a lot of suffering but one is clearly worse than the other.

This is why you won't answer which one you would stop if you could: Slavery or the expansion of the Colonies/USA. You know that slavery was significantly worse.

 

[Beeazlebub]

My argument is that one is more abjectly awful than the other. One was, at it's core, not much different than most other border disputes between rival countries. The other was stripping human beings of their rights to be considered as humans.

It's like comparing what happens in war to what the Nazis did. Both have bad things about them and cause a lot of suffering but one is clearly worse than the other.

This is why you won't answer which one you would stop if you could: Slavery or the expansion of the Colonies/USA. You know that slavery was significantly worse.

Are entire cultures eradicated during "border disputes"? What an absurd comparison.

 

[qazplm]

I have no problem with flags being taken down and renaming if it is what the community wants. attempting to scrub away history and telling people how they must view something, I'm don't agree with that.

How is "history" being "scrubbed" away? Are history books being confiscated? Are private flag collections being seized and burned? Are people beaten when they speak of the Confederacy? Are instructors forbidden from talking about the Civil War?

 

[qazplm]

Are entire cultures eradicated during "border disputes"? What an absurd comparison.

Here's the problem: The two of you are trying to determine whether genocide or slavery are worse. Why? To address the argument that we shouldn't tear down the Confederate flag because the US flag is just as bad. The problem with this argument is that it ignores a fundamental difference:

The US flag represents everything we do, good and ill. It has a long history, some of it bloody and regrettable and some of it noble and honorable.
The Confederate flag we are discussing represents one thing: slavery, despite the attempts to make it about state's rights or, laughably, tariffs.

The US flag has flown for 200+ years.
The Confederate flag, particularly the one we are most used to, flew at most for a few years, then was mothballed for decades in most places (save Mississippi, because, of course), and then was brought back first by the Dixiecrats in the 1948 election (and we all know what their deal was), and also as a "response" by racist state governments to Brown, and the Civil Rights movement. See e.g. S. Carolina 1961, and GA 1956.

Additionally, if we are talking in a more expansive sense, can you point me to another major nation where a rebellion from 150+ years ago has resulted in the symbols and leaders of that rebellion being so extensively incorporated into state and national government/buildings?

So this debate isn't necessary. Slavery is horrible. The genocide against the Native Americans was horrible. We don't have to figure out which was worse, because we don't have to engage in the wrong-headed fiction that the US flag is "as bad" as the Confederate flag and thus if we do anything to bar one, we have to bar the other/where does it stop.

 

[boilergeek]

Are entire cultures eradicated during "border disputes"? What an absurd comparison.

Well, the American Indian culture still exists. So if we are using them as the standard the answer is yes. Its has happwned all over the middle east for instance.

The major difference here is just how outmatched the American Indians were. I'm sure the same things happened with the other expansions we saw prior too.

 

[kescwi]

How is "history" being "scrubbed" away? Are history books being confiscated? Are private flag collections being seized and burned? Are people beaten when they speak of the Confederacy? Are instructors forbidden from talking about the Civil War?[/QUOTE

Burnt? No, co opted, yes, that's why we hear states rights as the cause, the history being taught. Are people being beaten, possibly dying, flags stolen, property vandalized recently over this issue, it appears so.

 

[qazplm]

We've been hearing "state's rights as the cause" long before anyone said boo about a confederate flag or confederate monuments, so you need to try again on that one.
I have no idea what you mean by "co-opted."

I'm fascinated about your deep concern for the possibility that someone, somewhere is suffering because they support/fly the confederate flag. Stolen flags?! Vandalized property?!
The horror. Meanwhile, EVEN Fox News thinks the latest person of color pulled over for no reason who is arrested for no reason and ends up dead under suspicious circumstances smells funky. Perhaps your concern is better served pointed in a better direction.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

I'm not underselling anything. They were forced to move and lost land. Many died during the conflict, and others unfortunately couldn't handle the new medical issues brought on by the expansion of people from different lands.

The slaves were literally kidnapped, taken to a new continent, stripped of all rights as a person, and worked to death. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have been a free American Indian than a slave on a plantation.

That isn't to say that the American Indians didn't also have it rough. The losing side of a land conflict always has struggles. They aren't anywhere on the same level though.

If you had a time machine, and could only stop one of these things:
1) Stop/End slavery
2) Stop/End the expansion of the Colonies/United States

Which do you choose?

I choose 1.

You are definitely painting the rosiest picture of the expansion of the US toward the West Coast that you can. The "new medical issues" were not naturally brought on by people from different lands. They were deliberately sown among the native population.

Wounded Knee and Sand Creek were not just "normal parts of expansion." Making treaties and then violating them at will is not just a "normal part of expansion."

If you look at the language used to refer to Native Americans and to Slaves, there is a common thread - both were deliberately defined and described as subhuman, beneath the colonists. The slaves weren't really people, so it was okay to enslave them. The Native Americans weren't really people, so it was okay to violate treaties and massacre women and children.

The two are different issues, yes, but there are far more similarities than you are willing to admit.

 

[boilergeek]

You are definitely painting the rosiest picture of the expansion of the US toward the West Coast that you can. The "new medical issues" were not naturally brought on by people from different lands. They were deliberately sown among the native population.

Wounded Knee and Sand Creek were not just "normal parts of expansion." Making treaties and then violating them at will is not just a "normal part of expansion."

If you look at the language used to refer to Native Americans and to Slaves, there is a common thread - both were deliberately defined and described as subhuman, beneath the colonists. The slaves weren't really people, so it was okay to enslave them. The Native Americans weren't really people, so it was okay to violate treaties and massacre women and children.

The two are different issues, yes, but there are far more similarities than you are willing to admit.

If you truly believe that then the Stars and Stripes should be replaced too.

While both are bad I think one is significantly worse. I know which one id choose to live my life as. I guess you'd consider being a slave over violated treaties.

 

[qazplm]

If you truly believe that then the Stars and Stripes should be replaced too.

While both are bad I think one is significantly worse. I know which one id choose to live my life as. I guess you'd consider being a slave over violated treaties.

I "truly believe that" and I don't think the Stars and Stripes should be replaced for reasons I've already laid out.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

If you truly believe that then the Stars and Stripes should be replaced too.

While both are bad I think one is significantly worse. I know which one id choose to live my life as. I guess you'd consider being a slave over violated treaties.

It's a false choice. I would not choose *any* situation in which other human beings are systematically treated as subhuman.

 

[qazplm]

It's a false choice. I would not choose *any* situation in which other human beings are systematically treated as subhuman.

It's a false choice for two reasons. First, because it's silly to try and rank atrocities of that level. Where do I put slavery and the Holocaust? Where do I put the Spanish death toll in South and Central America v. the number of people killed by Stalin? It's a dumb exercise.

Second, it's use in an attempt to link to dichotomous things that relate at only the basest, simplistic level.

 

[Jedifick]

The actual confederate flag in this slave war you speak of was a modified stars and bars. I feel like this fact just keeps going right over your head.

 

[kescwi]

We've been hearing "state's rights as the cause" long before anyone said boo about a confederate flag or confederate monuments, so you need to try again on that one.
I have no idea what you mean by "co-opted."

I'm fascinated about your deep concern for the possibility that someone, somewhere is suffering because they support/fly the confederate flag. Stolen flags?! Vandalized property?!
The horror. Meanwhile, EVEN Fox News thinks the latest person of color pulled over for no reason who is arrested for no reason and ends up dead under suspicious circumstances smells funky. Perhaps your concern is better served pointed in a better direction.

I'm fascinated that you, who will use that fact you have prosecuted people when it serves your needs, would so cavalierly disregard a crime or possible crime with "the horror"... worry about something else.

Sorry but I think it's wrong to point a gun a person simply because they're AA and I think it's wrong to point a gun at someone because of flag hanging from their porch.

I think when a witness claims her SUV went off the road while being harassed by people in another car because the driver, who died in the crash, was AA it should be vigorously investigated and prosecuted if evidence is found to support the claim but I also think the same should be done if a witness claims it happened because of a persons stance on a flag.

I have never, here or anywhere else, changed my stance on these AA deaths during encounters with police, so as you tell others, get over yourself. I'm troubled and disgusted by them, and feel race does play a part at varying levels. And as the "black lives matter" spray painted on confederate memorials shows, the two are now intertwined.

However I don't see it as zero sum, I don't see where there is any level of being offended, by something entirely legal, that makes a crime more or less important. I don't see how these racial issues can be solved if it must be viewed as winner take all, and yeah, if a persons culpability in a crime is weighed by the reading on some "offended" scale then we are already sliding down that slope.

 

[qazplm]

The actual confederate flag in this slave war you speak of was a modified stars and bars. I feel like this fact just keeps going right over your head.

So what? The Confederates used an old symbol to give legitimacy to a new symbol...aka what all humans have done ever.

 

[qazplm]

I'm fascinated that you, who will use that fact you have prosecuted people when it serves your needs, would so cavalierly disregard a crime or possible crime with "the horror"... worry about something else.

Sorry but I think it's wrong to point a gun a person simply because they're AA and I think it's wrong to point a gun at someone because of flag hanging from their porch.

I think when a witness claims her SUV went off the road while being harassed by people in another car because the driver, who died in the crash, was AA it should be vigorously investigated and prosecuted if evidence is found to support the claim but I also think the same should be done if a witness claims it happened because of a persons stance on a flag.

I have never, here or anywhere else, changed my stance on these AA deaths during encounters with police, so as you tell others, get over yourself. I'm troubled and disgusted by them, and feel race does play a part at varying levels. And as the "black lives matter" spray painted on confederate memorials shows, the two are now intertwined.

However I don't see it as zero sum, I don't see where there is any level of being offended, by something entirely legal, that makes a crime more or less important. I don't see how these racial issues can be solved if it must be viewed as winner take all, and yeah, if a persons culpability in a crime is weighed by the reading on some "offended" scale then we are already sliding down that slope.

Where to begin...

First, I do cavalierly disregard "possible crimes" aka zero evidence of an actual crime.

Second, IF an actual crime has been committed I'm sure the local authorities will proceed to address it in the local fashion as with other crimes. that isn't the question here, the question/questionable thing here is that you are attempting to link oppression in the name of the confederate flag, and by supporters of the confederate flag, and the long history of that flag, with a tiny handful of incidents where, allegedly, some confederate flag holder was harassed or even, maybe, possibly, who knows killed or assaulted.

There is no quantitative, qualitative, or any -tative link between the two phenomena anymore then there is a link between say violence between rival gangs in impoverished inner cities and the hatred of Mets/Yankees fans. I'm sure one can find an example of the latter that involves pointing a gun, vandalism or a possible death, but comparing it to the former is beyond silly. Comparing some theoretical, barely existent "oppression" of confederate flag supporters to the BLM movement is not just silly, it's offensive.

Yet that's what you are trying, poorly, to do. And yes, the only response I have to that is mocking and derision. To paraphrase Judge Smails, didn't want to do it, but felt I owed it to the discussion.

Your last sentence is nonsensical. This isn't about winner take all, it's about your trying to link two wildly unrelated phenomena in almost every possible way two phenomena can be unrelated.

 

[kescwi]

Where to begin...

First, I do cavalierly disregard "possible crimes" aka zero evidence of an actual crime.

Second, IF an actual crime has been committed I'm sure the local authorities will proceed to address it in the local fashion as with other crimes. that isn't the question here, the question/questionable thing here is that you are attempting to link oppression in the name of the confederate flag, and by supporters of the confederate flag, and the long history of that flag, with a tiny handful of incidents where, allegedly, some confederate flag holder was harassed or even, maybe, possibly, who knows killed or assaulted.

There is no quantitative, qualitative, or any -tative link between the two phenomena anymore then there is a link between say violence between rival gangs in impoverished inner cities and the hatred of Mets/Yankees fans. I'm sure one can find an example of the latter that involves pointing a gun, vandalism or a possible death, but comparing it to the former is beyond silly. Comparing some theoretical, barely existent "oppression" of confederate flag supporters to the BLM movement is not just silly, it's offensive.

Yet that's what you are trying, poorly, to do. And yes, the only response I have to that is mocking and derision. To paraphrase Judge Smails, didn't want to do it, but felt I owed it to the discussion.

Your last sentence is nonsensical. This isn't about winner take all, it's about your trying to link two wildly unrelated phenomena in almost every possible way two phenomena can be unrelated.

Fair enough, do I now reevaluate my views on recent shootings with absolutely zero proof they were racially motivated, or is that where your "tative" takes over?

You can find it as offensive as you want, I didn't make the connection, the BLM activists who are involved in this confederate symbol debate are the ones who made the connection, unless you believe I'm impersonating BLM activists and burning confederate flags, others can determine which specific confederate flag, and traveling the country spray painting confederate memorials with the words Black Lives Matter.

Good to know, tell us how it goes when you quote Judge Smails to the Joints Chiefs re riding the military of anything confederate. Surly you're putting your career on the line over this issue and letting those above you know how wrong they are in the same caustic manner you use with anyone you disagree with here. What do you plan on naming all those forts?

Yes, I guess it's not winner take all, just every one must see it your way.

 

[qazplm]

Fair enough, do I now reevaluate my views on recent shootings with absolutely zero proof they were racially motivated, or is that where your "tative" takes over?

You can find it as offensive as you want, I didn't make the connection, the BLM activists who are involved in this confederate symbol debate are the ones who made the connection, unless you believe I'm impersonating BLM activists and burning confederate flags, others can determine which specific confederate flag, and traveling the country spray painting confederate memorials with the words Black Lives Matter.

Good to know, tell us how it goes when you quote Judge Smails to the Joints Chiefs re riding the military of anything confederate. Surly you're putting your career on the line over this issue and letting those above you know how wrong they are in the same caustic manner you use with anyone you disagree with here. What do you plan on naming all those forts?

Yes, I guess it's not winner take all, just every one must see it your way.

There are no BLM people connecting their persecution to the persecution of confederate flag lovers, so yes you did make the connection, you literally made it in the post I responded to, and no, they are not making the connection.

I love when everyone else has a strong opinion on here, it's well a strong opinion. When I have a strong opinion about something it's "every one must see it your way."
You don't have to "see it my way" at all. You clearly don't "see" it at all. You keep making ridiculous, and often nonsensical segues.

Yes, if I don't put my career on the line and protest the naming of Fort Bragg or Foot Hood, then I can't possibly have any real thoughts or make any comments about anything.
I can't believe in gay rights in the military unless I personally protested it. I can't believe in anything or talk or advocate for anything unless I put "my career on the line" for it yes?
That's how it works, because goodness knows everything you've ever believed in, advocated for or discussed on a sports message board you went out and protested for.

 

[boilergeek]

It's a false choice. I would not choose *any* situation in which other human beings are systematically treated as subhuman.

Thats a cop out but whatever.

I think the choice would be easy. If you think the American Indians had it as hard as the slaves the we will disagree.

 

[kescwi]

There are no BLM people connecting their persecution to the persecution of confederate flag lovers, so yes you did make the connection, you literally made it in the post I responded to, and no, they are not making the connection.

I love when everyone else has a strong opinion on here, it's well a strong opinion. When I have a strong opinion about something it's "every one must see it your way."
You don't have to "see it my way" at all. You clearly don't "see" it at all. You keep making ridiculous, and often nonsensical segues.

Yes, if I don't put my career on the line and protest the naming of Fort Bragg or Foot Hood, then I can't possibly have any real thoughts or make any comments about anything.
I can't believe in gay rights in the military unless I personally protested it. I can't believe in anything or talk or advocate for anything unless I put "my career on the line" for it yes?
That's how it works, because goodness knows everything you've ever believed in, advocated for or discussed on a sports message board you went out and protested for.

I guess I don't see it, while I agree with BLM that both situations are a part of the larger issue of race today I guess I just feel that at the end of the day the best solution is going to be those of us in the middle getting over being offended and ignore those who are. This debate can't devolve into some guy offended by a flag vs a guy offended he can't display a flag. And that is not saying that is BLMs intention or they are behind any attacks on individuals, I don't think that and was not trying to say it was.

Of course you shouldn't risk your career, but your situation does show that the confederate symbol issue can be complicated in a multitude of ways. I would bet the military is already working on renaming but I'll also bet when they do they don't say "if you don't agree you're a racist and we are doing it because all those generals are now considered treasonous criminals." No I think they will soften it up a little.

 

[qazplm]

I guess I don't see it, while I agree with BLM that both situations are a part of the larger issue of race today I guess I just feel that at the end of the day the best solution is going to be those of us in the middle getting over being offended and ignore those who are. This debate can't devolve into some guy offended by a flag vs a guy offended he can't display a flag. And that is not saying that is BLMs intention or they are behind any attacks on individuals, I don't think that and was not trying to say it was.

Of course you shouldn't risk your career, but your situation does show that the confederate symbol issue can be complicated in a multitude of ways. I would bet the military is already working on renaming but I'll also bet when they do they don't say "if you don't agree you're a racist and we are doing it because all those generals are now considered treasonous criminals." No I think they will soften it up a little.

I have no idea if they are working on renaming. They should, and quite frankly I don't get the big deal here. Folks who love the confederacy can continue to do so. They can raise flags from their cars, they can wear stars and bars on their clothes, they can have websites, museums, and re-enactments.

I'm struggling to see the harm to removing these symbols from our government. Symbols which shouldn't have been there in the first place. You appear to not want a debate at all. You appear to want everyone to just be quiet about it and stop talking about it.

 

[kescwi]

I have no idea if they are working on renaming. They should, and quite frankly I don't get the big deal here. Folks who love the confederacy can continue to do so. They can raise flags from their cars, they can wear stars and bars on their clothes, they can have websites, museums, and re-enactments.

I'm struggling to see the harm to removing these symbols from our government. Symbols which shouldn't have been there in the first place. You appear to not want a debate at all. You appear to want everyone to just be quiet about it and stop talking about it.

No actually I'm sincere when I ask where does it end? I agree the flag doesn't belong on government property, but then what about national parks that are essentially museums? I have no problem with any confederate flag flying in Ft Sumter or any other civil war battlefield because of the historical context, but... And then if the flag must go then it all must go and what really is accomplished then? But then again, once you start where do you stop?

At the end of the day I'm not going to be consulted on it but it will be interesting to observe, I honestly think if people work together a proper solution will be found, if it turns into all or nothing... Who knows.

 

[qazplm]

No actually I'm sincere when I ask where does it end? I agree the flag doesn't belong on government property, but then what about national parks that are essentially museums? I have no problem with any confederate flag flying in Ft Sumter or any other civil war battlefield because of the historical context, but... And then if the flag must go then it all must go and what really is accomplished then? But then again, once you start where do you stop?

At the end of the day I'm not going to be consulted on it but it will be interesting to observe, I honestly think if people work together a proper solution will be found, if it turns into all or nothing... Who knows.

I have a hard time believing that because there are multiple lines one can draw that make this not as difficult of a question as you seem to assert it is.

If it's something set up as a historical monument, and the confederate flag has relevance, then it's fine there. See, easy line...historical fine, otherwise not fine.
There will be gray areas, but what things in life don't have gray areas??

 

[boilergeek]

I have a hard time believing that because there are multiple lines one can draw that make this not as difficult of a question as you seem to assert it is.

If it's something set up as a historical monument, and the confederate flag has relevance, then it's fine there. See, easy line...historical fine, otherwise not fine.
There will be gray areas, but what things in life don't have gray areas??

It's not even that hard. We don't display the flags of other nations unless it is a place of international significance(Olympic sites, United Nations, Embassy). The Confederate States don't even exist any more so that is much less of a problem.

We can still display them in museums. I doubt we are flying the British or Mexican flags for historical significance.

 

[kescwi]

I have a hard time believing that because there are multiple lines one can draw that make this not as difficult of a question as you seem to assert it is.

If it's something set up as a historical monument, and the confederate flag has relevance, then it's fine there. See, easy line...historical fine, otherwise not fine.
There will be gray areas, but what things in life don't have gray areas??

yep, hopefully it will be just that easy, it hasn't been to date but maybe.

 

[ecouch]

I would have never guessed there were more than one Lost Causer on this forum.

That statement adds nothing to this conversation. I simply find it odd. The sources are odd as well.