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.
From what I know, I agree. But post 426 reads to me as though the country did the Africans a favor, when that is far from the case. I understand your point about how detrimental it is for a person to look for reasons for the country to be divided, but what is the point in calling attention to the conditions under which they would have lived in Africa? I don't think it helps anyone's case.
It's got NO point, and is utterly devoid of logic or sound intellect. But that is what's to be expected from a confederate supporter.
You can say your Rebel flag represents anything you want. But there will always be stereotypes and negative conotations associated when other people see it. If you display one, you don't know how you might be unwittingly labeling yourself in other people's eyes.
If you don't mind negative attention and you find some source of pride in it, by all means, wave the Rebel flag. But the war is over and you lost.
From what I know, I agree. But post 426 reads to me as though the country did the Africans a favor, when that is far from the case. I understand your point about how detrimental it is for a person to look for reasons for the country to be divided, but what is the point in calling attention to the conditions under which they would have lived in Africa? I don't think it helps anyone's case.
But being a citizen of the United States is to preferable to being a citizen of, say, Sierra Leone -- wouldn't you agree?
Gee, I'll bet my ancestors wish that Americans would have given them the choice to find out on their own if that statement is true versus being kidnapped or forced to come to America. Then, their descendants would not have such disdain for your question.
Last edited by annibelle; 01-11-2008 at 12:26 PM..
Reason: corrections
To be sure, there have been some horrible things that have happened under the U.S. flag. Slavery. American apartheid. Japanese internment. Tuskugee Experiment.
But one key difference between the U.S. flag and that traitorous konfederate rag, is that slavery ended under the U.S. flag; constitutional and voting rights were rightfully claimed under the U.S. flag; the Japanese reclaimed their rights to life and property under the U.S. flag.
Could ANY of that have EVER happened under that confederate rag?
Well,
a. We don't know what the confederacy would've done. I've heard conjecture that slavery's days were limited in the first place. Slavery was awful for the southern economy. The common misconception is that all whites got unusually wealthy off the backs of blacks, due to free labor. In reality, that was only true for the 6% of whites that owned slaves, and the other 94% of whites were screwed by the fundamental economics of forced labor. One way or another, speculation about what the confederacy would have done about Japanese internment caps is no argument at all.
b. You conveniently limited yourself to the issues that the U.S. has 'fixed', or cleaned up. You neglected to mention any issues where the U.S. completely dropped the ball. That was a key point; that governments (and their flags) are ambiguous, not unilaterally bad or good.
Funny, I see Hitler defeated. Polio conquered. Martin Luther King. Universal Suffrage. The New Deal. SLAVERY ENDED. The Green Revolution in Farming. The Berlin Airlift.
I guess it depends on how wide you open your eyes.
The board's initial question was not about the American flag, a symbol of states united. It was about the confederate flag, a flag the divides peoples views. Of course, America is a great country that's why folks are always trying to get into our country. I don't see lots of Americas fighting to get out. But how do you view the confederate flag?
a. We don't know what the confederacy would've done. I've heard conjecture that slavery's days were limited in the first place. Slavery was awful for the southern economy. The common misconception is that all whites got unusually wealthy off the backs of blacks, due to free labor. In reality, that was only true for the 6% of whites that owned slaves, and the other 94% of whites were screwed by the fundamental economics of forced labor. One way or another; speculation about what the confederacy would have done about Japanese internment caps is no argument at all.
b. You conveniently limited yourself to the issues that the U.S. has 'fixed', or cleaned up. You neglected to mention any issues where the U.S. completely dropped the ball. That was a key point; that governments (and their flags) are ambiguous, not unilaterally bad or good.
I've read too what you say about slavery being bad for the south. What I don't get is if slavery was sooooooo bad for the southern economy, why couldn't they just let it go? That's why when people say the Civil War was about economics I have a hard time. If it was so much about economics why didn't they end slavery on their own? Also, if the Civil WAr was about economics and slavery had a large part to do with messing up the economy, then wasn't the civil war really about slavery? School me again.
a. We don't know what the confederacy would've done. I've heard conjecture that slavery's days were limited in the first place. Slavery was awful for the southern economy. The common misconception is that all whites got unusually wealthy off the backs of blacks, due to free labor. In reality, that was only true for the 6% of whites that owned slaves, and the other 94% of whites were screwed by the fundamental economics of forced labor. One way or another, speculation about what the confederacy would have done about Japanese internment caps is no argument at all.
b. You conveniently limited yourself to the issues that the U.S. has 'fixed', or cleaned up. You neglected to mention any issues where the U.S. completely dropped the ball. That was a key point; that governments (and their flags) are ambiguous, not unilaterally bad or good.
Yeah, I know. Slavery didn't benefit white people as much as we think. That makes not a damned bit of difference to me.
And I didn't list all of America's screw ups because they're many, and this is a discussion about the so-called merits of the confederate flag.
But do you understand then why the flag is viewed as being so devisive and not glorified by many? The American flag (did some dirt before and after the war) but became a symbol of unity. This is interesting. There were two types of people living in the south when the confederate flag came be:free white people and black slaves. Slavery divided these peoples views of what the flag means. It was two very different souths. So southern heritage and way of life has come to mean two very different things to two different groups of people who, while they lived in the same part of the country, experienced two very different outcomes. This is why the flag is still a symbol of that divisiveness. Every time you explain what heritage, way of life or honor it means to you (or white people during that time), the same symbol always mean heartache for the other south because their experience, while it happened at the same time, came to mean something very awful. It's a hard challenge that you ask of me. It seems like to me that your asking me and people who look like me look at the flag and not remember or think about what our ancestors experience at that time in the south was. It seems like your asking me and people like me to just look at the confederate flag and only see it as what it means to you. Is that possible? If so, that's a very tall order.
Somehow when I read your posts it seems like there are two different souths to you, slaves and slaveholders. I know that even if a white person didn't own slaves, they could own slaves, and so it seems like they must have supported the institution of slavery. But a lot of the soldiers who went to war didn't support slavery. The United States was a very young country, then. At its conception, the states were a collection of political entities, banded together to fight against Great Britain. After the Revolutionary War, there was a great deal of debate over what rights the individual states had and what rights the Federal government had. That debate has never been resolved. Speed limits, drinking age, education and even abortion are issues where states' rights frequently get pitted against the federal government. So when Lincoln took office, many Southerners feared he was going to use the power of the federal government to impose his values and standards on them, so they chose to secede from the Union. Lincoln didn't want the United States to degrade into a bunch of states acting independently and weakening each other to the point that an outside power like England or France could come back in and take over the colonies. 1861 wasn't all that far from 1812 when England had tried to retake the colonies. Slavery was a divisive issue, both economically and socially. But Lincoln fought to preserve the Union. The South fought for their right to legislate their citizens within their own borders. While some may have fought to preserve slavery, many more fought because they were pioneers, struggling day to day to put food on the table and to raise a money crop to pay for the tiniest luxuries. They fought because they didn't want the government telling them what they could or couldn't do. They fought against an invading army, to defend their homes and farms. They fought because they were Southerners, and they didn't like Northerners putting them down. To many in the South, there is a romantic component to the Confederate flag, representing brave men going up against an overwhelming force to preserve a way of life. Slavery may have been a component of that way of life, but to most of the soldiers who fought, who had never owned a slave, that way of life was about so many other things.
I've read too what you say about slavery being bad for the south. What I don't get is if slavery was sooooooo bad for the southern economy, why couldn't they just let it go?
That's why when people say the Civil War was about economics I have a hard time. If it was so much about economics why didn't they end slavery on their own?
The 6% that controlled southern slaves also controlled southern politics. It's like asking, "If the Iraq war is so bad for the economy, why can't we just let it go?" Oftentimes, 6% of the people will control 75% or more of the wealth. Money = decision making power.
In the case of, 'why did the other 94% go along with it..?' good question. For one, I'm guessing that the poor dirt farmers didn't understand economics and the labor markets. More importantly though, security was an issue. Prior to the Civil War, there were several cases in South America of the massive slaughter of whites in slave uprisings. The general populace was probably afraid of what they thought might happen.
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.
