Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you seem to be just comparing random eqivilancies. The Belgians had an even later slavery system in Africa that brutalized Africans. The list goes on and on.
I wasn't sure where exactly to post this, or if this has been covered before, but here I go.
Seems like lately that there has been a lot of controversy about monuments, statues, and other early pre abolitionist era Americana. This got me thinking the British empire had dominated the African slave trade, and colonized most of the world for hundreds of years along with other countries to a lesser degree. So why doesn't it seem that there is similar attitudes between the two?
That's for British people to decide. Not Americans.
I hope this isn't a veiled attempted at making the confederate flag a victim.
They employ it, but is "hijacked" the right word to describe what they did? The rebel banners originally stood for racism. It was the symbol of those fighting to preserve race based slavery. The inferiority of blacks was codified in their state's declarations of secession, in their national constitution, and perhaps most famously in vice president Alexander H. Stephens' "cornerstone speech."
"Hijacked" suggests that the banner once stood for something else but has been repurposed and corrupted by modern racists. I don't think that we would describe neo-Nazis as having "hijacked" the swastika emblem.
We are going to get in trouble for opening this pandoras box of discussion, but at that risk:
Let's all agree the CSA cause was one of treason and the continuation of slavery. The national flag of the CSA was their version of the stars and bars originally and we can all agree it represented those causes that we now find unacceptable. Now the confederate battle flag you see today however was devised for battlefield usage as the stars and bars was too easily confused with the union flag. There were other battle flags in use as well, based on states and military units of course. The point it - it was never intended as a symbol, but of as a point of practicality for a fighting unit. An adaption of the cross of St. Andrew.
Later of course (I think in 1963?) it did become part of the CSA national flag and the stars and bars replaced for the same reason - it looked to much like the US flag. But what was the original intention for the flag? To give the soldiers of the Northern Army of Virginia, most of who didn't understand the true causes and reasons for the war and were simply fighting and dying, a flag to rally around. It was a soldiers flag, nothing more.
Since then the context of usage has changed - at the end of the war it was the symbol of veteran confederate soldiers, a memorial for fallen comrades. KKK didn't use the Confederate flag it in it's first iteration, they could care less. Anti-reconstructionist? No one cared, it was a meaningless rag to them. In early 20th century it became a romanticized symbol of "the lost cause", but in the 1930s the KKK, in their rebirth, started using it, in the 60s it became a symbol of rebellion in some circles, but other groups took it over in a response and objection to the civil right movement. Still until the end of the 20th century it was still socially acceptable as an archaic symbol of the south (i.e. silly "Dukes of Hazzard" TV show). Now you have modern hate groups - skin-heads, aryan hate groups, neo-nazis that have picked it up. I've heard now that overseas hate groups have picked it up as well, probably thanks to social media. The more you make an object a symbol of hate the more it becomes one.
So again in my point - the swastika existed side by side with the German cross, the Balkenkreuz, during the Nazi regime. Why is one banned in Germany while one is still in use? The answer of course is the swastika represented the Nazi Party while the Balkenkreuz represented the military. But is that a good enough answer? If the confederate limited the Southern Cross to the battlefield would that than justify giving it a pass? Would the stars and bars be that symbol of hate today with the battle flag simply being a military memorial symbol?
I don't think that the people flying Confederate banners are making the distinctions you raise. I suspect that most aren't even aware of the battlefield/political split.
I don't think that the people flying Confederate banners are making the distinctions you raise. I suspect that most aren't even aware of the battlefield/political split.
I wasn't sure where exactly to post this, or if this has been covered before, but here I go.
Seems like lately that there has been a lot of controversy about monuments, statues, and other early pre abolitionist era Americana. This got me thinking the British empire had dominated the African slave trade, and colonized most of the world for hundreds of years along with other countries to a lesser degree. So why doesn't it seem that there is similar attitudes between the two?
Most of the battle in the United States has been against the Confederate Flag and monuments. The Confederacy was an attempt by some US states to start their own nation, done primarily to protect slavery in the South. Thus for many people, the Confederate flag has no redeeming feature, its just bad, even evil.
The Union Jack on the other hand represents Great Britain and like all major nations (and most smaller ones), Great Britain has both good and bad in its history. For instance, while the British helped to spread slavery into the New World, later on in the 1800s they tried to end it.
I wasn't sure where exactly to post this, or if this has been covered before, but here I go.
Seems like lately that there has been a lot of controversy about monuments, statues, and other early pre abolitionist era Americana. This got me thinking the British empire had dominated the African slave trade, and colonized most of the world for hundreds of years along with other countries to a lesser degree. So why doesn't it seem that there is similar attitudes between the two?
This comparison comes up rather frequently, and it always makes me shake my head. The difference between the flags of the United Kingdom (which I will henceforth refer to collectively as the Union Jack for the sake of simplicity, albeit at the expense of precision) and the flags of the Confederacy could not be more stark.
The United Kingdom is a state with failings, like all states. One of its failings was slavery. However, the United Kingdom was not founded on the principle of slavery. It was not created in order to perpetuate slavery. It did not, in its founding documents, extol slavery as a virtue.
The Confederacy, however, did just that. The seceding states all laid out their reasons for seceding and slavery was front and center. The famous Cornerstone Speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens unreservedly states that the slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy and that the Civil War was being fought specifically because of slavery, and assures the world that the Confederacy, by being founded upon the 'ideal' that whites must enslave blacks, was superior to the United States.
Slavery, evil though it assuredly was, nonetheless was incidental to the existence of the United Kingdom. But slavery was the raison d'etre of the Confederacy.
Like I said, the difference is clear.
Note #1:
The exact same difference exists between the flag of the United States and the flags of the Confederacy.
Note #2:
I am reminded of the strawman argument oft made, wherein we are lectured that if we do not honor traitors (Davis, Lee, etc.) with holidays and statues, and we cannot honor non-traitors (Washington, Jefferson, etc.) who also owned slaves. Of course, this is nonsense because the mere owning of slaves is not the issue. Davis and Lee are celebrated for their roles in the attempted establishment of a nation founded on the principle of enslaving people. Washington and Jefferson are celebrated for their roles in founding a nation embracing principles antithetical to enslavement, despite the fact that said nation (and said individuals) fell short of that principle for the better part of a century. No one celebrates Washington and Jefferson owning slaves. No one has to - they did much else to celebrate. But Davis and Lee have nothing but the cause of slavery as their historical legacy.
They couldn't figure out a way for them to leak oil.
Funny. And, do you know why the English drink warm beer?
Spoiler
Lucas refrigerators.
Personally, I love the British as a people, simply because of the fortitude they displayed in WWII. If I had to pick a historical "hero", Winston Churchill would be high on the list.
....Washington and Jefferson are celebrated for their roles in founding a nation embracing principles antithetical to enslavement, despite the fact that said nation (and said individuals) fell short of that principle for the better part of a century. No one celebrates Washington and Jefferson owning slaves. No one has to - they did much else to celebrate. But Davis and Lee have nothing but the cause of slavery as their historical legacy.
In addition to which Washington came to see slavery as a wrong, and decided that he would free his slaves upon his death. He failed to convince Martha to do the same, though I believe (not sure) that her son/his step-son did upon her death.
Jefferson's personal writings indicate that he felt the black African to be an inferior human; thus, his lofty writings about freedom were limited to white freedom. My own opinion after reading books about Jefferson and some of his writings that he was writing for history not particularly for real life. He seems a bit of the poseur, starry-eyed about the Roman republic as were many of his contemporaries and in real life had a great taste for the life of lordship.
Believe me, there are people who absolutely hate the British.
As opposed to the universally popular USA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why not the same hate for the union jack
