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.
Steve, we have been all over this before so if you have a short memory on the earlier exchange between us concerning historical perspective ala' secession, Ft. Sumpter, etc, then please go back and re-read it. Just as anyone else can if they are interested as well. I see no need to keep replying time and time again to your same old arguments which present nothing new.
What do I say next? About what? The picture of Ft. Sumter you posted? I guess what I say is what relevence does it have to the issue?
I just cant help myself.
Wanting peace and firing aggressively on Ft. Sumter (not Sumpter) to ignite war is just one giant contradiction.
"War of Northern Aggression". hahaha Last I knew, the Union was FACTUALLY around before the Confederacy formed. So when the Confederacy formed they were now their own "nation" (according to their words), smack dab right next to the Union. This would definitely be perceived as a threat to the Union, so a mobilization of Union troops under President Lincoln amassed. So, not only has former Union states seceded and formed their own nation within the Union, but they also then fired upon Ft. Sumter, prompting justified retaliation from the Union forces, but somehow its labeled the "War of Northern Aggression".
Tomorrow Im going to come into work and announce that I have quit, because my job wont let me shoot guns on its property(or some other kind of crime), ok? Then, after announcing Ive quit, Im going to start my own company right here, in the same building. Now, anyone who passes by my desk is my new enemy, regardless that theyre old friends or whatnot. I mean, even though theyve been here long before I started my own company, theyre now on "MY TERRITORY" and invading "MY SPACE", theyre a "THREAT"! Next, Im going to walk up to the closest desk of my newfound "competition" and relentlessly pound the harmless worker into submission, and when that workers' friends and coworkers attack me for attacking him, Im going to call it "aggression" on their behalf. Sound familiar, anyone?
You can roll your eyes all you want, but it means nothing if your analogy and facts don't stand up to historical scrutinty, or are even full of non-sequituers. Which is the case here. Yes, the Old Union predated the Confederacy. However, the individual soveriegn states predated the Union. And we have discussed that one before as it concerns secession (review it if you like).
None of this is to say, and should NOT be construed, as dismissing your opinion. However, take the case you make about the Confederacy being next to the Union and therefore a perceived threat. The problem is all you are doing is just making conjectures that have nothing to do with what actually happened. It would have validity only if any of it were true at the time. But it wasn't. Never was the mere fact of Southern secession presented as being a military threat to the continued existence of the United States (i.e. the northern states which kept the name), and offered forth as a justification for invasion.
The "company" analogy you use is even more groundless, and in fact, almost comical (meaning no personal disrespect). The only valid part of it all is that you are free to quit the company for whatever reason you choose.
As to the next part, for one thing, there is absolutely no analogy between a soveriegn state (which is what the British INDIVIDUALLY recognized the 13 colonies to be in the Treaty of Paris...independent and soveriegn STATES) and an employee of a company.
One is possessed of "territory" as a matter of intrinsic definition. The United States, in the day called THESE united states (note the plural) was not a single landmass with the states consisting only of arbitrary lines drawn on a map. When the states banded together voluntarily into a federation/confederacy of their own, they gave up ONLY those limited powers they ceded to the federal government which (hard as it may be to believe today) were specific and limited. Their individual territory was not one of these, so they were not all "in the same building". An salaried employee on private company property is not even a basis of comparisson. And there is no need to go into the rest of the extensions of the argument. (See, I can roll my eyes too.)
I want to make clear, as I did in earlier exchanges, I have no problem with discussing and disagreeing on interpretations of historical facts. There are several on here (you too on some occasions) who I disagree with, but respect their ability to present their case factually. It seems though, that very often, your missives take on a certain "extreme" tone when someone simply says they aren't accepting your vision of the situation.
You're correct of course about the spelling of Sumter and the whole board turns it's attention to Reb's insertion of an extra letter, totally derailing the discussion and causing Reb extreme embarassment and bowel irritation.
Originally Posted by Steve-o "War of Northern Aggression". hahaha....So, not only has former Union states seceded and formed their own nation within the Union.....
But, Steve, continuing with the grammar and sentence-structure-police lessons...taking your partial comment above, that would be HAVE seceded, not HAS seceded.
I don't think any one among us, myself included, submits his/her written thoughts to a staff of proofreaders. Typically, the mind engages and the fingers type pretty fast and the objective is to advance the discussion by making a clear point based on some sort of fact.........and very little attention ARE given to an errant misspelled word or TOO.
Wanting peace and firing aggressively on Ft. Sumter (not Sumpter) to ignite war is just one giant contradiction.
Only if one believes a nation is acting aggresively by -- after repeated warnings and promises of honorable terms and safe conduct -- finally decided to act in its own defense by removing troops of a foriegn power who are in the former's territorial waters. Indeed inside an important harbor. Which means the latter could have been used in a blockade, etc.
But again, this and all things connected has already been explored. If you (or anyone else) wants to review it, please refer to pages 21 and 22, for the different perspectives. Remember now, pages 21 and 22
I am really not altogther sure what you are asking. But I think I get the general thrust. However, before answering, I want to note that you seem to be drawing some sort of symbolic parallel between the Confederate Battle Flag as used by the South during the War Between the States and the swastika as used by the Nazi's. Wellll, let me rephrase that. Perhaps that is not YOUR personal belief, but it is implied on some level. And certainly there are many people who DO in fact make no distinctions. Or at least attempt to equate the two as very akin. But before going on, here are a couple of real and obvious differences.
1. The Nazi policy of genocide for those races/groups deemed "sub-human." This is the most appalling and revolting of any aspect.
2. At the time of the WBTS, slavery still existed in the western world, and it was being struggled with, in the American South as well. Whereas those enslaved in Nazi Germany were at a time when it had disappeared from Western Civilization for almost a century, and was brought back. Too, those enslaved by the nazi's were literally starved, beaten, and worked to death. Not even the severest critic of slavery as it existed in America alleges such inhumanity was commonplace. Sure, there were sadistic slaveowners, but there were still laws in the Southern states against deliberate mistreatment and slaveowners were obligated by law and common humanitarian/Christian ethics to take care of the sick, injured and old.
3. The Confederate States of America was a constitutional republic like the United States. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship. Free speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms, etc. did not exist in the latter, and in fact, could be punishable by death if deemed to be harmful to the state.
4. Nazi Germany pursued a militaristic and agressive foriegn policy with the intention of world domination. The Confederacy only wanted to be left alone and peacefully.
5. The political principles the South fought for were deeply rooted in those set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (which itself had largely been written by Southerners).
6. In the United States at least, those who display the swastika usually DO in fact, adhere to the Nazi philosophy, at least in part. The vast majority of Southerners do so out of a sense of regional pride, heritage, etc.
Anyway, for those reasons, just to name a few, my initial reaction to someone displaying the swastika would be negative. At the same time, if the person explained to me that, in their personal set of values and beliefs, it represented nothing more than religious beliefs, or principles. Or of their ancestry? Then I would respect that. And probably mention what a shame it is the symbol has in fact been so tainted.
For some of us, this is part of the purpose of this thread, to give those who see the Confederate Flag in a negative light some facts of history or personal perspective that perhaps they had never considered and/or heard before.(keeping in mind of course, and emphasizing, the absolutel non-association between what was done under the two symbols).
Does all this kind of answer the question?
I am not trying to link the two symbols' meanings but more of the similarities in logic and reasoning for continuing its use. The most common reason I hear is heritage and pride. Surely, the swastika with its centuries of positive meaning and religious pride deserves to be shown proudly too. But there seem to be a hypocritical perspective from rebel flag supporters when it comes others using the same logic and reasonings to display the swastica. I keep seeing reasons like that's because the swastika represents something worse than slavery or that its a evil nazi meaning vs a honorable confederacy meaning (this part is the most amusing, cause they are actually comparing their non tainted version of the flag with the tainted version of the swastica, that would be like me comparing the untainted honorable religious roots of the swastika with the tainted slavery confederate flag)
Quote:
The word “swastika” originates in Sanskrit. It is composed of “su”, meaning good/well and “asti” meaning “to be”; svasti thus means “well-being”; “-ka” forms a diminutive, and svastika/swastika might thus be translated literally as “little thing associated with well-being”. In ancient Indo-European cultures, it was put on objects to symbolise good luck. In geometric terms, the swastika is an irregular icosagon or a 20-sided polygon.
The right-handed clockwise swastika is considered an auspicious symbol of the sun or of Lord Vishnu, the sustaining aspect of God (in the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwar). It also represents the world-wheel around a fixed and unchanging centre, God. I am not sure about the first appearance of the word or the symbol in ancient Indian texts but it has been in use since antiquity.
Usage
As a symbol, it has been used for several millennia – not just in India but also in other ancient civilisations (e.g. it has been found in the ruins of the city of Troy). Other than Hinduism, it has also been used in Buddhism, Jainism, and other cultures including in the Native American cultures (one of my friends even found the symbol on an art piece in a museum in Turkey).
In earlier times, the swastika was used freely by Sumerians, Hittites, Celts and Greeks, among others. Even the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon ship burial at Sutton Hoo, England, contains gold cups and shields bearing swastikas. The swastika has also appeared in South and Central America, and has been widely used in Mayan art during that time period.
In both Hinduism and Jainism, the swastika is used to mark the opening pages or their account books, thresholds, doors, and offerings.
The major difference between the Nazi swastika and the ancient symbol of many different cultures, is that the Nazi swastika is at a slant, while the ancient swastika is rested flat.
Knowing how much meaning the untainted confederate flag has, you will get upset when ppl put it down. But now that you know what the swastika really means, would you also be upset if you found out ppl decide rip up a hindu yoga school because they use swastica symbol for their school. Would you be upset if ppl demanded nintento to redraw a cartoon because one of the characters bears a buddhist swastica symbol, would you be upset if microsoft decides to include asian fonts, but take out its good luck swastica because it might offend others. There are many other such cases that ppl displaying the confederate has not gone through besides being put down on online forums.
For one, those who made it up north faced extreme discrimination, no prospects, no work, and had to live in slums and under conditions where, materially speaking in terms of adaquate food, shelter, etc, they were in a lot of cases better off (except of course in being "free") back in the South.
That's a pretty big caveat, don't you think?
Unfortunately, due to more pressing offline responsibilities (impending medical license exam), I'll have to end my part of the conversation here. I may post a one liner here and there, but probably not anything long or substantive. I'll try to think carefully about the issues you raised, and may post again in the future (but not if this thread is long dead and buried). Like I said before, we're not changing anyone's mind here, but its definitely been more fun than studying for a test.
Unfortunately, due to more pressing offline responsibilities (impending medical license exam), I'll have to end my part of the conversation here. I may post a one liner here and there, but probably not anything long or substantive. I'll try to think carefully about the issues you raised, and may post again in the future (but not if this thread is long dead and buried). Like I said before, we're not changing anyone's mind here, but its definitely been more fun than studying for a test.
Not really, going by what I have researched it was pretty much the rule. The link I posted yesterday is a good one to check out.
Good luck on the exam! And it has been both entertaining and informative to discuss with someone who is so obviously open-minded and knowlegable, even in mutual disagreement.
I feel that deep down persons who fly the Confederate flag do not consider themselves Americans. I am American, so I fly the star-spangled banner, not stars and bars.
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.
