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.
I disagree that the Confederate flag is an appropriate comparison to the swastika. To my knowledge, the Confederate flag is a symbol of the American South and the secessionist movement; not a symbol of slavery or hate. I am not culturally "Southern" and have absolutely no affinity for the Confederacy or its flag. However, I disagree with disallowing its use and display in public places because the way I see it, it is not a symbol that is widely considered hateful.
How would you all react if I were to tell you that the image of Che Guevara is offensive to me because he murdered hundreds of people in Cuba for speaking out against the revolution, practicing religion, and being gay? I am not really that offended by seeing his image all over posters and t-shirts, but I know many people who get quite upset and offended when they see this. Should Che's image be banned just because these people are offended? If the Confederate flag is a "hate" symbol, why isn't the famous picture of Che that is worn on t-shirts, seen on posters, and displayed at parades and protests? Both images evoke hate in at least some people's minds.
Rep for you!
Some people use it as a tool to promote hate or take advantage of something or bully them into doing what they want.
The same people who hate the confederate flag promote other hate filled ideals but that is ok.
The Dixie flag is all over the world.
We have a Country Music Festival here, in Spain, and the Dixie Flag is all over.
Some stupid people here get pissed when they see an American flag, but everybody loves Dixie flags.
Well you have to remember to certain segments of our society this flag is equated with the KKK and their atrocities so I understand it being a symbol of hate. I remember in 2006 being in downtown Orlando and there was a KKK rally (I''ve never seen anything like it!) and the flag they were carrying was the Confederate flag as they hurled insults about minorities. Personally this is how I see it, a symbol of hate and of a failed secessionist movement.
Well you have to remember to certain segments of our society this flag is equated with the KKK and their atrocities so I understand it being a symbol of hate.
That's a reason to understand why THEY SEE IT as a symbol of hate, not a reason to equate it with BEING a symbol of hate.
Quote:
I remember in 2006 being in downtown Orlando and there was a KKK rally (I''ve never seen anything like it!)
Yeah, and like all of the KKK or neo-nazi rallies I bet they were outnumbered 100-1 by the other side. Just because a few fringe people want to stir up trouble does not mean it reflects on how society at large feels about an issue... or a flag.
I disagree that the Confederate flag is an appropriate comparison to the swastika. To my knowledge, the Confederate flag is a symbol of the American South and the secessionist movement; not a symbol of slavery or hate. I am not culturally "Southern" and have absolutely no affinity for the Confederacy or its flag. However, I disagree with disallowing its use and display in public places because the way I see it, it is not a symbol that is widely considered hateful.
How would you all react if I were to tell you that the image of Che Guevara is offensive to me because he murdered hundreds of people in Cuba for speaking out against the revolution, practicing religion, and being gay? I am not really that offended by seeing his image all over posters and t-shirts, but I know many people who get quite upset and offended when they see this. Should Che's image be banned just because these people are offended? If the Confederate flag is a "hate" symbol, why isn't the famous picture of Che that is worn on t-shirts, seen on posters, and displayed at parades and protests? Both images evoke hate in at least some people's minds.
Well the Confederacy and National Socialism had one major common theme - extreme racism. It was white superiority in the old south which touted that AA were simply an inferior race thus they could be held as property. In Germany, it was the aryan race that was supposedly superior, which was why Jews and Slavs could be (and were) liquidated wholesale to create lebensraum for the superior race. Anybody who was on the receiving end of either treatment would agree neither was a good thing. And to suggest Nazism was worse than slavery, I have heard the considerable argument that while Nazi was brutal it, only lasted 6 years while slavery lasted 300 in this country alone.
I don't know enough about Che to really comment, but it does seem to me he and Fidel fought a war which was purportedly started to liberate the poor Cubans from the vices of the mob controlled gambling houses of the day. I don't know enough about the Batista regime to imagine how awful they were. And certainly one must say if Fidel was such a populist, one must wonder why he didn't accept term limits. But one must admit that in the chronicle of the world's atrocities, Fidel does not rank at all in the list of the world's most notorious villains.
Nonetheless, I oppose war in almost all scenarios. In his latest years, one of the oldest living WW1 vets made the statement that war is nothing more than the condoned and organized murder of countless human beings. By firing the first shot at Fort Sumter the rebels began a process that cost the lives of more Americans than any other war, and that was when our population was a mere 31M. Factor that ratio and today's comparable mayhem would be on the order of 7 million dead Americans. Frankly I rather disagree with Lincoln's choice to go to war. In retrospect, it may have been better to let the south go and let them find their own miserable way to the end of the peculiar institution like Brazil did.
Honestly I don't find the rebel flag all that offensive at all. I used to wear it in my Lynryd Skynyrd days much to the chagrin of my gay art teacher. Of course I naively saw it simply as a rebellious youth symbol at the time. It is pretty benign at this point, but I certainly understand how it offends the heirs of its victims.
Symbols of extreme racism that lead to historic bloodbaths are hard for me to respect. When it comes to free speech - sure they can wave it, but at the same time those are offended by it have the right to speak out and use their political clout to thwart it, right? And I have the right to boo when they come by, just like you may boo Che or Lenin or any other warmaking monsters, right?
To me George Washington was not as great a man a Gandhi, MLK, Buddha or Christ. The reason I believe the latter are better is these few individuals found the way to change the world without the mass murder of war. Washington and other warriors are common in history. Bloodless leaders are rare. I don't think Christ would approve of what deeds the symbolism of the cross lead to in his posthumous history.
Well the Confederacy and National Socialism had one major common theme - extreme racism. It was white superiority in the old south which touted that AA were simply an inferior race thus they could be held as property. In Germany, it was the aryan race that was supposedly superior, which was why Jews and Slavs could be (and were) liquidated wholesale to create lebensraum for the superior race. Anybody who was on the receiving end of either treatment would agree neither was a good thing. And to suggest Nazism was worse than slavery, I have heard the considerable argument that while Nazi was brutal it, only lasted 6 years while slavery lasted 300 in this country alone.
I don't know enough about Che to really comment, but it does seem to me he and Fidel fought a war which was purportedly started to liberate the poor Cubans from the vices of the mob controlled gambling houses of the day. I don't know enough about the Batista regime to imagine how awful they were. And certainly one must say if Fidel was such a populist, one must wonder why he didn't accept term limits. But one must admit that in the chronicle of the world's atrocities, Fidel does not rank at all in the list of the world's most notorious villains.
Nonetheless, I oppose war in almost all scenarios. In his latest years, one of the oldest living WW1 vets made the statement that war is nothing more than the condoned and organized murder of countless human beings. By firing the first shot at Fort Sumter the rebels began a process that cost the lives of more Americans than any other war, and that was when our population was a mere 31M. Factor that ratio and today's comparable mayhem would be on the order of 7 million dead Americans. Frankly I rather disagree with Lincoln's choice to go to war. In retrospect, it may have been better to let the south go and let them find their own miserable way to the end of the peculiar institution like Brazil did.
Honestly I don't find the rebel flag all that offensive at all. I used to wear it in my Lynryd Skynyrd days much to the chagrin of my gay art teacher. Of course I naively saw it simply as a rebellious youth symbol at the time. It is pretty benign at this point, but I certainly understand how it offends the heirs of its victims.
Symbols of extreme racism that lead to historic bloodbaths are hard for me to respect. When it comes to free speech - sure they can wave it, but at the same time those are offended by it have the right to speak out and use their political clout to thwart it, right? And I have the right to boo when they come by, just like you may boo Che or Lenin or any other warmaking monsters, right?
To me George Washington was not as great a man a Gandhi, MLK, Buddha or Christ. The reason I believe the latter are better is these few individuals found the way to change the world without the mass murder of war. Washington and other warriors are common in history. Bloodless leaders are rare. I don't think Christ would approve of what deeds the symbolism of the cross lead to in his posthumous history.
This is utter BS. For one, only about 5% of Southern landowners owned slaves in 1860. Second, Nazism was an ideology, whereas there was no systemic "Southern ideology." Third, the Confederate flag was simply the symbol of a failed attempt to create an independent country. Just because said states allowed the inhumanity of slavery doesn't mean that slavery was the root cause of the Confederacy forming.
Symbols of extreme racism that lead to historic bloodbaths are hard for me to respect. When it comes to free speech - sure they can wave it, but at the same time those are offended by it have the right to speak out and use their political clout to thwart it, right? And I have the right to boo when they come by, just like you may boo Che or Lenin or any other warmaking monsters, right?
People can protest all they want. That's a First Amendment right as well. Protesting and boycotting often are quite effective ways to get people to shut up.
There are a lot of things people say and do that I do not like. I don't like that people demonstrate against homosexuals. I don't like that posters, t-shirts and banners of Che Guevara are paraded around at public events. And I certainly don't like that a small group of militant black guys frequently uses NYC public spaces to spread their message that white people are the devil and are going to hell. However, in exchange for my Constitutionally protected rights of free speech, I have to put up with the protected speech of everyone else, with much of which I strongly disagree.
If people in Homestead or Davie or Loxahatchee wish to display the Confederate flag during parades, so be it. If you are really that offended by it, demonstrate, boycott their businesses, or just don't attend. I can tell you that one thing we did not cover in my Constitutional law class is the right to not be offended.
The Southern States were not racist in the terms you are explaining here. In those years, blacks were a merchandise and for the most part, blacks were not considered humans, not a Human Race. I know, it's sad, but reality. You must judge History in its own context.
Blacks were a expensive piece of equipment imported illegally and were treated better than any European peasant at that time.
You must also remember that a large part of the European settlers that colonized the South were Indentured Slaves, that later became slave owners themselves.
The Confederacy didn't perpetrate any Holocaust on blacks since their economy, just as in Cuba and Brazil, depended on slaves. White people weren't any good (or did not want) to pick cotton or cut sugar cane.
Che was a mass murderer and Castro's atrocities are well known, but liberal media holds to the few "cliches" they still have. Once Castroism is over, all his crimes will surface. You must also remember that "leftists" Dictators in power always have good reputation until they are displaced. Some "rightist" criminal dictators enjoyed good reputation until quite recently in America, that was the case of "Doctor Hitler" (as part of the English press called him in 1936). Hitler was extremely popular in the United States up to the point that Chaplin was kicked out of the US for filming the Great Dictator.
I understand what you say about opposing wars, but unfortunately "pacifists" are a magnet that attract wars. Such was the case of Europen Pacifism and non involvement during the 30's and American Isolationism. Such mouvements created Hitler and provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
Yes, Lenin was a monster and a genocide. Read more about him.
And again, "racism" as you perceive it did not exist in the XIXth Century since victims were not even considered humans, or equals, and society, church, etc, and the entire society (including the North) supported the views that blacks, chinese, Indians, etc, were not human.
The only discordant voice was the Catholic Church and some protestant denominations. But Catholic Church is to blame for the inception of black slavery. Father Bartolome de las Casas advocated that Indians were humans and had a soul, but blacks were not humans and did not have a soul (1500).
Another thing, the North didn't give a crock about blacks, they just wanted to destroy the Southern Economy and slavery was the perfect excuse.
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.
