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 just find it strange that they would bring a symbol like that to a place that has no history of the Civil War or the Confederacy. Homestead and most of south Florida didn't even exist at the time of the Civil War.
Exactly. If you check on the Florida Civil War website they say FL played little to no role in the Civil War.
I think it depends how that particular flag/symbol affected someone. For instance for a person of Germanic decent living in Nazi Germany the Nazi flag could be German pride, the over coming of a debilitating economic depression and a return to German power and supremacy on the world stage. For others like Gypsies, Mental Ill, Jews and host of other groups it represents racism and horror. It can be all those things at one time depending on what side of the fence you're on. Much like the confederate flag can mean something great for a southern white but the black experience under that flag is something completely different. Should it be banned or not allowed? I don't know what the answer is to that one. one thing is for sure, alienating sections of the population doesn't bode well in terms of cohesion in a society and that is a important element in any SOCIETY (I think many American's don't understand what it is to be a part of a society sometimes.)
Completly agree. Symbols/Flags are extremely subjective but some "normal" order must prevail in the society. The question is what is the "normal"? .
LOL, I mean, for me in partcular a red flag with a sickle and hammer is the devil, but for Michael Moore it represents the salvation and freedom of the evil "free market" aka capitalism. Am I wrong or is he right? Who nows, but toleration and respect for other people's belief is esential for a society. When I say toleration and respect, Im saying for everybody, not only one group, it is for EVERYBODY, and that includes organizations like the KKK, the NAACP, and La Raza organization.
*sigh* If you think that slavery played no part in the civil war then you need to read more. Go read up on the Missouri compromise, read up on the admission of California as a state into the U.S. and what the controversy was over it. There are MANY other examples but I will just leave it at that. You fail to realize the south was based on cotton and tobacco in terms of its economics, to abolish slavery meant a end to its economy as it stood at that time.
You can't rely on fox news and the internet to understand american history you have to go out and read actual books not or take classes, relying on some kids blog which he writes from his moms basement wont help you in this issue. I had to take a few classes on American history because of my degree. I understand the factors involved very well. Don't get me wrong, it sounds very romantic and cute to think the south was just standing up against the usurpation of its rights blah blah blah but reality is a entirely different thing.
LMAO Manolon, this guy throw you under the bus. ("Te tiro con to")
I hope I'm not informing you about something you shouldn't know...
The Civil War did not have anything to do with slavery and blacks.....
It was just a smoke curtain and a poor excuse to destroy and plunder an important part of that beautiful country...
Later, they did the same thing to Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii....
The Confederate Battle Flag? A beatiful flag, I have a couple of them.
LOL, you just open a can of worms here. What you just said is like going to the Versailles and cheering the name of you know who. Whait for the educators to prove you wrong and for the KKK members to prove you right.
By the way what do you mean with Cuba, Mexico, Puerto Rico.
....Crisp444....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.
thank you. The best analogy that I have seen about this. I know this is a very old post but I just saw the thread.
Exactly. If you check on the Florida Civil War website they say FL played little to no role in the Civil War.
Im sorry but whatever that website is, it ought not to have posted such a sweeping generalization that is not accurate and false. Florida was perhaps not as involved as maybe virginia, or south carolina or georgia even but to say it was barely involved or not at all is a lie and such inaccuracies shouldn't be spread around. Florida seceded. It supplied troops (often though by drafting poor cracker men away from their families via orders from state marshalls for example), and even more importantly: it provided Cattle which became desperately needed by rebel forces who were getting low on food (crackers then became part of florida's colorful pre-1920s history). In fact there was a push by union forces to "cut the state in half" by a battle near what is today north Florida to attempt to cut off the food supply for rebel troops. Other battles and skirmishes occurred as well through the state and even the quote your quoting is inaccurate. People did live in South Florida (i admit homestead was still mostly swamp) and Fort Dallas (which was previously the only establishment in what is today downtown miami) existed along with other squatters. Plus Palm beach existed, albeit much smaller and rather dumpy until I'd say about the 1890s-1900s when it began to boom.
Perhaps what the website should have explained was that Florida maybe wasn't as involved as other states such as a virginia like i mentioned. This owes more to the fact that Florida at that time was more of an untamed wilderness with only a few coastal ports and its only real "city" of sorts was Jacksonville, waay in the north of the state. But to say Florida didn't play a part - thats just fugding facts for convenience.
And one more thing, people who live in homestead now and display the flag - how do you know their families date back to these times AND are from homestead. Seems to me if a family moved from say Alabama to homestead they are just as likely to fly the flag. Its not like these people were flying the "Homestead Rebel Flag Special Edition" or something - they could and most likely are migrants from other parts of the state/the south. Thus they'd have more than their reason to want to show it.
Dont people find it odd that the same people whining about this flag are some of the same people who are supporting the buy black only business idea? What is the difference?
NAACP needs to spend more time helping kids learn to read and how to be responsible then spending their time trying to take away someone rights like this.
....."If the flag bothers you, don't look at it"........
What an unfair and immature statement that was. Such words are only helpful if you want to have the last word.
I don't care for the confederate flag, to be honest. You could wave it all you want, or hate it if that's your call, but here in Miami, it has no meaning for the majority of people. It might as well not exist here in Dade. <<<<< I know, what I just wrote is an example of how thoughtless a person can be.
What's the name of that animal that hides its head every time it is in trouble?
Everyone going on and on about 1st amendment rights to fly the made-up flag of a set of traitors (as a previous poster helpfully pointed out, this was not even the official flag of the CSA) ought to remember that people have the right to be offended by a displayed symbol. I'd bet money that a few of the people who are offended that people are offended by that comical (I find it both comical and ludicrous) display of fake heritage are plenty offended when they see immigrants displaying the flags of their countries of origin.
If a Arab radical walked around NYC wearing a t-shirt of the planes slamming into the WTC, and like-minded "patriots" branded it into the "official symbol of pride in Muslim heritage," I'd be looking for the same level of dispassionate argument, and what I'd find is a shrill and xenophobic dressing down of "Moozlims" who ought to show more respect of the dead, nameless victims they trivialize in the name of "celebration." You know, so as to avoid the utter hypocrisy of looking down one's nose at the unseemly emotional response to a group of people whose intent is to fan the flames or to support a "cause" they have no immediate or often historical link to. I'd be looking for it, but I wouldn't find it.
People have the right to be offended by symbols, and a civil society made up of people with diverse opinions must negotiate a solution that retains essential freedoms but does not trample upon the rights and feelings of others. It IS a negotiation, not some sort of ordainment of a particular set of truths that one either supports or denies. Erring on the side of civility, respect and recognition of the horrors perpetuated in the name of a cause is precisely why the vast majority in the world views the Nazi flag with a jaundiced eye, and why especially the Germans would never equate their cultural heritage with displaying the Nazi flag. It's an inadequate representation of the entire history of a people, so it cannot reasonably represent anything other than some half-baked notion of a people's "culture" and "traditions," but it does represent the specific ideas associated with the flag. Especially one created to represent specific ideas of a reactionary, thinskinned and violent people, as both these flags were. When you have cultural traditions that transcend a mere blip on the historical radar your identity isn't all wrapped up in a flag or a t-shirt, but in an actual way of life. That's why you won't find (for example) loads of Jamaicans protesting the Union Jack. As oppressive and racist as the British were, the culture ultimately expanded to include rather than exclude them. The same goes for the American flag.
Do these Confederate...patriots celebrate all of the Black and mulatto slaveowners and even Black slaves that fought for their cause?
Once upon a time the KKK flew the stars n stripes, because it was the nation's violent enforcer of white supremacist ideology. If you think that Black people who descend from African slaves (and some Europeans and Native Americans), Jim Crow victims and the survivors of state-sponsored terrorism ought to "get over it," then so should the descendants of Europeans (and some Africans and Native Americans) who were subjected to the harsh reprisals of the victor in the war. It's over. You weren't there. Let it go.
If we are to be offended by nothing in the name of the 1st amendment then I'd like to propose that this virtuous symbol of "love" for the "Southern way of life" be amended by those who are most offended. How about the NAACP adopt a symbol of "black pride" with a likeness of Nat Turner roasting a little white baby on a spit over the stars 'n bars, to drive home the message that self-determination, revolutionary zeal, and reactionary violence to oppression, no matter the savagery with which it is pursued, is a-okay? It's just a flag, right? Right...
And yes, Southerners were fighting for states rights...states rights to keep slaves. They didn't secede because the Union wanted to abolish slavery in their existing states, they seceded because of collective chest-thumping about restriction of slavery in new states to the Union. Provide the homeland/way of life/anti-federalism sanitary treatment if you like, but I'm with Thomas Sowell on this one too. All this "defense of honor" and "pride" stuff is nothing more than imported Scots-Irish street thug machismo, and it cannot mask the mountain of evidence in contradiction of the notion that the war had nothing or a little to do with slavery. Slavery was the central issue upon which the claim of states rights rested. Since it fueled the economic engine of the entire country (indeed, the Western world) for centuries it's no surprise.
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.
. 
