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've heard the argument about it being about culture to some. However, is this a culture you should praise? History is history but this part of the nations past should be kept strictly in the books for learning lessons of what not to do.
Me being an black male, I personally take it as a slap in the face when I see the flag. You may look at it as culture but I look at it as imprisonment, torture, bigotry and hate. With such a wide spectrum of thoughts on the flag it should be removed for that reason alone.
PBS has an excellent documentary on the Civil War- caused by slavery.
One of about 1,000,000 sites.
Look at the data on a slaves life-span vs the replacement cost for another one.
Heck, look at the data from your own backyard (S.C.) on the conditions of slave bodies exhumed by Anthropoligists.
Slavery was a system of genocide, and like the Nazis they (slavers) worked 'em to death. Just like in the Todt Camps.
I didn't deny slavery's role at all. But since I hail from the wild deserts of Arizona, there were very very few slaves here (I think somewhere around a dozen slaves in 1860, and that's when we were part of New Mexico!).
But the Confederates never organized any effort to relentlessly put blacks in gas chambers, you still can't compare the two.
I didn't deny slavery's role at all. But since I hail from the wild deserts of Arizona, there were very very few slaves here (I think somewhere around a dozen slaves in 1860, and that's when we were part of New Mexico!).
But the Confederates never organized any effort to relentlessly put blacks in gas chambers, you still can't compare the two.
Again, baloney:
Slavery as practiced in the South was/is genocide.
You're disputing that based on technology. Slavers did not have gas chamber technology; they simply worked 'em to death, whipped them to death, or cut off the feet of any who tried to escape, or set fire to those who challenged white rule after the Reb Army had been defeated.
But you must know then that Arizona was settled by Southerners prior to the war- which is why they also wanted to join the Rebs- and that after they lost (Confederates) many Southern families took refuge there.
Slavery as practiced in the South was/is genocide.
You're disputing that based on technology. Slavers did not have gas chamber technology; they simply worked 'em to death, whipped them to death, or cut off the feet of any who tried to escape, or set fire to those who challenged white rule after the Reb Army had been defeated.
But you must know then that Arizona was settled by Southerners prior to the war- which is why they also wanted to join the Rebs- and that after they lost (Confederates) many Southern families took refuge there.
And your folly is that you state it as if it was systematic under some fascistic rule in the south, slavery as we put it in the south was not genocide, it was nothing more than chattel. And you must know, that the southern half of New Mexico (the original Arizona) seceded because when the war started all the forts were emptied, leaving any pioneers to be left to the will of the Apaches (who were probably one of the most violent tribes in America), and they saw the Union as abandoning them, thus seceding at the Mesilla Convention (modern Las Cruces, New Mexico).
But no, there was no systematic cleansing at any time in the Confederacy's history, so stop saying it. If you want to rave about genocides, talk about what happened to the Sioux in Wyoming and the Dakotas.
And your folly is that you state it as if it was systematic under some fascistic rule in the south, slavery as we put it in the south was not genocide, it was nothing more than chattel. And you must know, that the southern half of New Mexico (the original Arizona) seceded because when the war started all the forts were emptied, leaving any pioneers to be left to the will of the Apaches (who were probably one of the most violent tribes in America), and they saw the Union as abandoning them, thus seceding at the Mesilla Convention (modern Las Cruces, New Mexico).
But no, there was no systematic cleansing at any time in the Confederacy's history, so stop saying it. If you want to rave about genocides, talk about what happened to the Sioux in Wyoming and the Dakotas.
I know that the chattel you speak of were human beings condemed to a life of labor that killed most, and that the few who tried to escape were systematically tortured and murdered.
And that the people who were chosen to be slaves were all of African ancestry.
So, slavery was genocide, and just like the Nazis, the slave owners first worked 'em to death before they died/weere killed.
And I also know that like New Mexico, the Anglo population of Arizona was very pro-Southern (thus pro-slavery) and had it not been for losing the battle of Glorieta to Colorado troops, both would have joined the Confederacy.
But that's just ancillary to the real question:
If South Carolina is not still a racist hole, then why keep a rag flying on state land that was only put-up in the 1960s to keep black kids from attending 'white' schools?
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.
