Ole Miss are now the Black Bears, congrats on caving to a bunch of PC nonsense! (Jackson: 2014, schools)

[jhadorn]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

You have pretty much stated how much of MS feels...

You know this symbol is offensive to a large part of the population.
You know WHY it's offensive.

But when given the opportunity to do something progressive, and take others feelings into account, instead you (as another poster said) give a great big F U to everyone. Instead of trying to learn and grow, you wallow in your ignorance and revel in the fact that nothing has changed and you like it that way.

I'm confused. What did peppermint say that would be construed as ignorant and giving a big F U to everyone?

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by jhadorn

I'm confused. What did peppermint say that would be construed as ignorant and giving a big F U to everyone?

He did nothing when given the opportunity to change the state flag...

[peppermint]

Oh, jhadorn, it's not worth it. I was a 21-year old Masters' student, living hours from my home town, taking the max number of credit hours, studying or writing every waking minute, and I should have driven nearly 4 hours back to my home town to vote on something I didn't feel particularly passionate about. If I had not voted in the presidential election, presumably, that would have been ok, but since I didn't vote to change the flag, I'm an ignorant racist. It's brilliant logic. Who can argue?

FYI, Jack, I'm a female. Any educated, ethnically diverse female.

[jhadorn]

I didn't vote on the flag issue either, but i'm not ignorant nor do I give a big FU to everyone.

[peppermint]

I agree with you, jhadorn.

[poptones]

The motivation of the fighters is important because the rebels include the fighters not just the politicians.

Irrelevant. Every war has a reason, and the reason behind the civil war was slavery. Not state's rights, not freedom from a king's oppression, but simply about the right for one man to own another and to profit from that other's work. That's it. The states were already part of the Union, this was not about defending the land from invaders, it was only about defending an economic model built on oppression, force, and coercion. That's it. This is not my opinion, this is reaslity straight from the leader of the confederacy. Did he have to spin it to instill loyalty in his forces? Of course - just as every leader spins the facts to rouse the troops to fight. This is the way war has been fought since the time of Sun Tzu, your attempt at disputing this reality only makes clear your unwillingness to be truthful about the matter.

And because the Colonel represents the leadership of the army and my point is that these are southern volunteers fighting not for slavery but for their land.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Land owners held land that was already part of the U.S. The moment those states decided to secede they created this instability. So farmers were caught in a crossfire because one power wanted to preserve their right to defend slavery and the other recognized the wrong in that, but that still doesn't change the fact the war was over slavery, and if you were fighting defending the south you were defending the economic and social construct of slavery. It doesn't matter at that point your house was razed by union soldiers when they came through, or that your son had died by a stray bullet while out planting - if you were wearing a confederate uniform and participating in the war then you were taking people's lives in the defense of wealthy land owners to own other men and to further their economic status based on the work of those men. In fact, you were defending the right of a fairly elite few to profit from the work of men they owned rather than pay the rest a fair day's wages for the very same work. And when the south finally lost that war they still managed to sustain that economic model another century through sharecropping. I was born in 1962, I remember visiting my aunt and uncle down here when I was 7 and they were STILL sharecroppers in 1969 - a full century after that war. And people wonder why the south is still so far behind the times...

The rebels and the Colonel represent what? The volunteer farmer or the slaveholder?

As has already been pointed out: the Colonel is an OFFICER. Officers were property owners who had sufficient wealth to buy their commissions. He was not a "farmer" duh, farmers don't wear white three piece suits with tails they wear dungarees. Very few farmers (even white ones) in the mid 1800s owned the land they were farming. Only about five percent of southerners actually owned slaves, but they were also the ones who owned the land. That doesn't mean five percent of the soldiers were slave owners, because those "farmers" were more likely than not sharecroppers farming land owned by a slave owner or were extended family members of slave owners.

Maybe if "colonel Reb"" HAD looked more like Johnny Reb he'd still be prancing around the field in Oxford. Still wouldn't mean he wasn't a defender of slavery.

[Tama]

Originally Posted by poptones

[i] He was not a "farmer" duh, farmers don't wear white three piece suits with tails they wear dungarees. Very few farmers (even white ones) in the mid 1800s owned the land they were farming. Only about five percent of southerners actually owned slaves, but they were also the ones who owned the land. That doesn't mean five percent of the soldiers were slave owners, because those "farmers" were more likely than not sharecroppers farming land owned by a slave owner or were extended family members of slave owners.

Maybe if "colonel Reb"" HAD looked more like Johnny Reb he'd still be prancing around the field in Oxford. Still wouldn't mean he wasn't a defender of slavery.

I didn't say the Colonel was a farmer--at all--I said he was the leader of the farmers. I can see where you can argue that as an officer he represents slaveholding interests. I just happen to disagree with that. I see him as neutral since not all officers were slaveholders.

I guess I think you are painting with too wide a brush and I see the whole war and those involved in it as having many more layers and dimensions. Just as the United States and many other countries and societies have. Some symbols are narrow and have no other representation than evil-e.g.swastika--but a flag, a soldier(including an officer), or a name or any symbol representing an entire society, complicated history, and multiple facets of life of an entire region and people is much broader.

But I admit to not knowing the origins of this mascot. Did it at one time clearly stand for that aspect of the South that supported oppression and
disregard for human rights. Was it a slap at civil rights and meant to hold forth in support of continued segregation ploicies. OK--then I can see it being distasteful.

I am open to being convinced but haven't heard anything along these lines yet. Anyway--interesting argument and though it is just a mascot after all--it does stand in for a lot of more important PC issues.

[thedwightguy]

My dad worked in Arkansas during segregation, just before we joined him in Oklahoma from Canada. My freshman debate partner at the U.S. Nationals was one of two blacks there. In Chicago. In 1970. I don't see Col. Reb. offensive at all. Work needs to be done on real issues, if you please.

[poptones]

I see him as neutral since not all officers were slaveholders.

And, like I said, I like (some) Nazi art. I like the Imperial style of it. I like the gothic design of it. I just received a 1936 two mark coin in the mail today that I have been waiting on for some time; the obverse design is an eagle holding a fasces surrounding a swastika. I think the coin looks cool, but I am not insensitive to what it represents, and I wouldn't think of using it as an ornament for my door knocker or maybe an inlay for the gearshift in my car. No matter how cool it looks, it is still a symbol that represents the slaughter of Millions of people, and not just Jews - artists, mentally ill, political opponents were all killed under that symbol just for being different. So, I keep these things relatively to myself.

But guess what? You can't even buy those german coins in Germany. They can't even be displayed. Nor in France. Because they have LAWS forbidding such use.

No one is outlawing col reb: he is being retired because he is a symbol more negative in connotation than positive. He's being retired becuase he simply doesn't make economic sense - any more than it would make sense for me to use that "cool design" on the Nazi coin as a trademark for my business, or a signet stamp for my letterhead. This isn't about "political correctness," it's about commerce -- just like slavery.

And By the way: that "evil" swastika is over 3000 years old. It dates back all the way to the Neolithic - a long time before Jesus, much less Hitler. Study your history.

See? You just did it yourself. It's that easy. This is why Col Reb is dead.

[StilltheSame]

Originally Posted by kazoopilot

The name needed to change. The image of a slave-owning "rebel" is very offensive to black Americans, as well as to all non-whites.

and many whites also.