Racism in the Pittsburgh Suburbs (Baldwin, Gettysburg: homes, neighborhoods, buy)

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I don't think that is accurate on the Union side, because presenting it as a war primarily about slavery would actually have made it much less popular, particularly in the border states.

Just like Bush didn't rely entirely on "freedom" and "spreading democracy" in Iraq. He wouldn't have had public approval on that agenda alone. So he added religion and fear to the mix. The financial rewards reaped by the oil companies affiliated with Bush and Cheney tell another story. Darn shame we don't know enough about the financial rewards for the politicians in the Civil War period.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

In any event, regardless of what ulterior motives various politicians might have had, the truth is that preserving slavery was one of the causes explicitly cited by the Confederate states for their secession, and it was also inextricably linked to all of their other main grievances, including with respect to the economics of cotton. And noting that various Union figures were racists, didn't treat black people well in numerous ways, and so on doesn't actually undermine that fundamental point.

For the most part, I agree with this. The key difference, and I'll admit that I'm arguing semantics here, is that I believe the South used slavery to stir up support from the public. That's what makes it semantics. It's racist and highlights how raciest the public was in the South. If they weren't racist, that wouldn't have motivated their support. I'm not really disagreeing on this issue. I just think it's important to acknowledge that there were many aspects to the Civil War. To water it all down to slavery is insulting to slaves because they were exploited by both sides.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Which, in turn, is why the KKK, Dixiecrats, and so on eventually adopted the Confederate battle flag: they knew full well it was an appropriate symbol of white supremacy, support for Jim Crow, and opposition to federal protection of civil rights for African-Americans.

I agree with all of this.

My biggest mistake was being pulled into Lobick's history arguement. My main point is I truly don't think many SWPA flag flyers have enough knowledge or intelligence to know it is considered racist because other meanings have been subsquently applied to the confederate flag.

[Velvet Jones]

Originally Posted by Lobick

The same argument can be made for any combatant in any war they didn't have the power to start. Over history, how many serfs died in wars they didn't understand for their noble or their king? For that matter, how many in Vietnam or Iraq died while opposing the war? There is no correlation.

Perhaps if all those "country farmers and mountain men" who didn't benefit from slavery (as you proffer) chose not to fight but rather opposed the war, it would have proved unnecessary.

Again, I find your view of the average southern complete out of line with history has shown. I suggest you read one of the numerous journals that were kept by southern soldiers during the war. These were men that were eager for a fight, not lowly peasants conscripted in to action. Remember, it was your beloved Lincoln who nearly tore the Union apart by ratcheting up the draft. If anything, the disillusioned ones were more on the Northern side.

As for the flag in the modern north, I think it is more of a symbol of rebel spirit then anything else. While there are Klansman and other who fly it as a true political statement(yes, they exist in western PA), I think the majority see it not much more than a cool decal.

[BrianTH]

It is a sad commentary on the current state of American politics that opposition to Jim Crow is considered by some to be a "liberal" position.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by Love2Golf09

Wow, what a terrible thread. Awful, awful, awful! This is probably one of the worst piece of garbage threads I have ever read on here. Six full pages on "racism in the 'burbs" and all we have are two actual examples; A questionable account from the OP regarding some bikers he saw once that might have simply been passing through from anywhere, and an article about a hs kid in a banana suit. Instead of real examples, which would be few and far between, the thread turns into a ridiculous discussion on the conferderate flag. What a horrible thread.

BrianTH, for invoking the Nazis in an already pointless and bizarre conversation, you win the Liberal Jerk of the Day Award. I hope that award manages to feed your massive ego. You've earned it, pal. You truly are Pittsburgh's biggest jerk.

Need I remind you and some other posters about Jonny Gammage?
Jonny Gammage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Just like Bush didn't rely entirely on "freedom" and "spreading democracy" in Iraq. He wouldn't have had public approval on that agenda alone. So he added religion and fear to the mix. The financial rewards reeped by the oil companies affiliated with Bush and Cheney tell another story. Darn shame we don't know enough about the financial rewards for the politicians in the Civil War period.

It wasn't just that the Union officials added other causes to the list of reasons to fight over the attempted secession, it is that they specifically tried to downplay slavery. I don't know if an analogy is helpful, but if anything slavery would be analogous to oil, not freedom.

I just think it's important to acknowledge that there were many aspects to the Civil War. To water it all down to slavery is insulting to slaves because they were exploited by both sides.

I sort of understand what you are saying, but I think it would make more sense if what we were talking about was something like "pro African-American" versus "anti African-American", or if you prefer, "pro racism" versus "anti racism". It is certainly correct that the Union was not in any comprehensive way pro African-American or anti racism. However, on the issue of slavery in particular, at least by the latter part of the war everyone on the Union side knew they were fighting to end slavery--the Emancipation Proclamation made that clear.

My main point is I truly don't think many SWPA flag flyers have enough knowledge or intelligence to know it is considered racist because other meanings have been subsquently applied to the confederate flag.

I'd guess we'd have to talk to them to find out. But I would point out that organized white supremacy is not in fact merely a historical issue in the United States, or in Pennsylvania.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Velvet Jones

As for the flag in the modern north, I think it is more of a symbol of rebel spirit then anything else.

Specifically, the "spirit of rebellion" against federal officials trying to protect the civil rights of African-Americans.

If that isn't your thing, there are many other symbols of rebellion available.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by Velvet Jones

... your beloved Lincoln...

Guilty as charged. I would have hoped for "our" beloved Lincoln, but I guess that's asking too much.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I can't help but notice that when you use phrases like "using that logic", you typically are not actually using the same logic, or really any logic at all. That's a good tactic for coming up with transparent strawman arguments, which may have rhetorical value among those already committed to agree with you anyway, but it is not particularly effective at persuasion.

It's not a strawman as the point is you will see the flag all over Gettysburg because it is not automatically judged as a symbol of racism. Likewise you will not see a nazi flag flown over WWII historical sites because it is universally viewed today as a hate/racist symbol.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

It's not a strawman as the point is you will see the flag all over Gettysburg because it is not automatically judged as a symbol of racism.

Dude, seriously?

We're talking about people proudly displaying the Confederate flag in a modern context, not in a historical presentation. Pretending the two are "logically" the same is in fact a transparent strawman.

Likewise you will not see a nazi flag flown over WWII historical sites because it is universally viewed today as a hate/racist symbol.

Of course you can see Nazi symbols in all sorts of historical presentations on WWII. However, Germany specifically has a ban on Nazi symbols (such a ban would likely violate the First Amendment in the United States). As I recall, they don't even allow it in model kits.

Edit:

Here's the Smithsonian:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/milita...path=9.1.r_236

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Of course you can see Nazi symbols in all sorts of historical presentations on WWII. However, Germany specifically has a ban on Nazi symbols (such a ban would likely violate the First Amendment in the United States). As I recall, they don't even allow it in model kits.

They don't even allow historical simulation/strategy computer games which have a swastika in them to be published there. One reason why many settled for the "red baron" style cross instead.