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.
First, any symbol of a nation, region, community, etc. should unite, not divide, a community. That's the starting point. Hence, if substantial numbers of people object to the symbol, then the symbol's simply inappropriate. Native Americans do not object to the Stars and Stripes. Racial minorities, particularly blacks, do object to Confederata, and I frankly don't blame them.
Should Native Americans object to the Stars and Stripes? Different issue, but I'm not Native American and therefore am not in a position to say what they should object to.
I agree, that a symbol of a nation or a region should unite the people. The Confederate flag doesn't do this. Anything related to the Confederates does not unite the people living in the Southern USA. It is a very divisive symbol. It has been that from day one. In fact:
As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.[5]… Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN'S FLAG
LOL....oh please Mr. Mariner, please don't call me the "S" word. It might hurt my widdle feelings. LOL. It's always just about you, isn't it? You don't want to see something so it needs to be removed. You want to be somewhere so the hell with anybody else, right? That girl went into that place for one reason - to cause problems. That's all! This country has bent over backwards to appease selfish, childish behavior. After decades in the USAF I've seen it all when it comes to the failed diversity, multicultural experiment. It sucks and at some point I'd think there will be a helluva backlash. But you and yours just carry on acting like children.
I call it as it is. I look at the post you responded to, and make my assessment based on that. You are the one who made comments like "why would they be there other than to make trouble" when it came to restaurants. According to the person you were responding to, they were there to stamp out the last vestiges of Jim Crow. However, your statement implies that you are against that. What else is there to think than you have a segregationist mindset? Prove me wrong.
Here is the truth. This is a free country. Anyone can be wherever they want to be. If you don't like that, well, tough. That female went into that place because Jim Crow needed to end. The laws in the South were not just. In fact, the South's ways between the end of the Civil War into the 1960s were disgusting. Either people were going to stop doing that, or there was going to be force. The South was dragged out of the slavery era kicking and screaming. The South was dragged out of Jim Crow segregation kicking and screaming. There were people acting like children, but it wasn't the people stamping out Jim Crow. Many bent over backwards to appease those who hated Blacks, those who couldn't let go of the fact that the South lost the war. The Lost Cause of the Confederacy is one example. Those who get upset or defiant when presented with the fact that the Confederates wanted so bad to keep slavery that they would fight a war for it, those are the ones acting like children. Those flying the Confederate flag are acting like children. The war is over, Get over it.
It's not satire sadly. There are people in this society who still think like that. And I will tell you this. If any friend of mine thinks like that, well, they cease to be my friend. They prove to be a threat to me. A big threat to me is a return to 1950s style social "order".
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 6 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,603,799 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
Symbols of the United States are already under attack. Harmless statues, and flags again. Washington, and Jefferson because they owned slaves, Columbus because he exploited the natives, The Star Spangled Banner, The Pledge of Allegiance, etc. These are already being taken down, and the rest questioned. The American flag is not allowed in certain schools because it may OFFEND illegal aliens.
It will be a cold day in HELL when I let a statue, flag, song, or symbol harm me. The fact is they can't. When we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it, even Jim Crow. Sad, and pathetic.
Nonverbal communication can sanction a social climate that disempowers the oppressed every bit as much as actual government policy could. Besides, I don't see any purpose in keeping those statues up. You can learn more history from books and classes than you can from statues. Besides, if symbols - or more specifically their condition - can't hurt, then why object to burning the Stars and Stripes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
They weren't allowed by law to sit there or the owners didn't want them there. They were not customers. They were however human beings who should not have been treated that way. Just as all the white restaurant owners shouldn't be treated as racists either.
Are you getting it yet?
Legal and moral are two entirely different things. If an unjust law can't be repealed without civil disobedience, then non-violent disobedience is the way to go. Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi and Nelson Mandela all broke the law to protest injustice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerMtn
It's always been odd that some people want to go where they know nobody, and share no values with anybody there! Why is that, except to be disruptive? I know I can't imagine finding a place where there's nothing of interests to me, and I decide that's where I'm going!
It's not like this was the only diner in town.
How about Mississippians visiting San Francisco, or vice versa. "This land is your land...this land was made for you and me" comes to mind. There's also the principles totally beyond where you prefer to visit. It's a matter of human dignity - the right not to be judged based on trivial background or personal characteristics. That includes the right to eat at any restaurant you choose. BTW, I'm sure you'd object if some restaurant in Berkeley had a sign - clearly not ironic in intent - "No Red Staters Allowed on Premises For Any Reason". That's judging you on the basis of trivial characteristics, and, if taken far enough, gives a false legitimacy to beat, harass, or discriminate against that group simply because they are part of that group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Technically they weren't going there to eat. I doubt any of the Civil Rights activists would have been so stupid to actually eat a meal that a known bigoted restaurant owner had made. It was about defeating Jim Crow and the government made regulations even though no ones rights were violated. Quite a few businesses were forced to follow Jim Crow against their will.
Yep, definitely agreed. There was a bigger principle at stake than trying out a restaurant's dish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog
The big bad statue hurt my little feelings, what a bunch of
You mean you don't get irked at the media portraying certain areas of the country as "hayseed"...and worst? Or portraying conservatives as prejudiced against races, genders, transsexuals, and gays doesn't get you mad? Or the burning of a US flag to protest government policy? Especially the latter, would that make you want to protest/object the flag burner? If so, you need to get off your high horse about "hurt feelings" (actually I question whether being highly sensitive really is a contempt-worthy trait, but that's another topic I talked a lot of on other threads).
Spent a lot of time in Lee Park when I was younger, they used to give free concerts and the area is beautiful. Sad to see the Statue go, it is a work of art and should be retained someplace people can view it.
Going to cost approximately $400,000 to remove it and redo the area, me thinks the "outraged" should foot the Bill.
It wasn't hurting anyone, and a poll that was taken showed that most people didn't care if it was up or not, or wanted it left alone. The City Council put it to a vote and made the decision among themselves, just to placate the rabble.
The money that was spend removing the statue could have been better spent. Take a look at the homeless in this city and tell me the removal of a stupid statue was more important than helping the homeless - many of whom are black.
By removing a statue you can't remove the fact that slavery existed. No one alive today was a slave or a slaveholder. Time to let these old resentments go.
Nonverbal communication can sanction a social climate that disempowers the oppressed every bit as much as actual government policy could. Besides, I don't see any purpose in keeping those statues up. You can learn more history from books and classes than you can from statues. Besides, if symbols - or more specifically their condition - can't hurt, then why object to burning the Stars and Stripes?
Legal and moral are two entirely different things. If an unjust law can't be repealed without civil disobedience, then non-violent disobedience is the way to go. Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi and Nelson Mandela all broke the law to protest injustice.
How about Mississippians visiting San Francisco, or vice versa. "This land is your land...this land was made for you and me" comes to mind. There's also the principles totally beyond where you prefer to visit. It's a matter of human dignity - the right not to be judged based on trivial background or personal characteristics. That includes the right to eat at any restaurant you choose. BTW, I'm sure you'd object if some restaurant in Berkeley had a sign - clearly not ironic in intent - "No Red Staters Allowed on Premises For Any Reason". That's judging you on the basis of trivial characteristics, and, if taken far enough, gives a false legitimacy to beat, harass, or discriminate against that group simply because they are part of that group.
Yep, definitely agreed. There was a bigger principle at stake than trying out a restaurant's dish.
You mean you don't get irked at the media portraying certain areas of the country as "hayseed"...and worst? Or portraying conservatives as prejudiced against races, genders, transsexuals, and gays doesn't get you mad? Or the burning of a US flag to protest government policy? Especially the latter, would that make you want to protest/object the flag burner? If so, you need to get off your high horse about "hurt feelings" (actually I question whether being highly sensitive really is a contempt-worthy trait, but that's another topic I talked a lot of on other threads).
I won't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't care to go into a restaurant or anywhere else where I wasn't wanted.
Nonverbal communication can sanction a social climate that disempowers the oppressed every bit as much as actual government policy could. Besides, I don't see any purpose in keeping those statues up. You can learn more history from books and classes than you can from statues. Besides, if symbols - or more specifically their condition - can't hurt, then why object to burning the Stars and Stripes?
Many people either don't realize that, or just blatantly disregard it. When it comes to Confederate statues, one has to consider why they were erected in the first place, and when. The "when" is more likely to explain the "why". They were erected after Reconstruction ended. The Lost Cause of the Confederacy was coming into shape at this time. The South couldn't come to grips with losing the war. There was much anger and resentment towards the federal government, northerners, and Blacks. The statues were likely erected as a way of assuaging self-esteem, as well as being an "up yours" to northerners and the newly freed Black populations. And Jim Crow started right after Reconstruction ended. It was meant to restore a perverse social order. Blacks were no longer slaves, but there were those who felt that Blacks needed to be controlled, kept down, and "kept in their place". Many Blacks were against the statues going up in those days. However, with Jim Crow around, Blacks in the South didn't have a say. This is what Jim Crow was about. Making sure Blacks didn't have any say. Anyone, White or Black who opposed Jim Crow was subjected to many problems.
Quote:
Legal and moral are two entirely different things. If an unjust law can't be repealed without civil disobedience, then non-violent disobedience is the way to go. Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi and Nelson Mandela all broke the law to protest injustice.
Sometimes, one has to consider what is right. Jim Crow laws were legal. The things that took place in the South from 1976-the 1960s were legal. They were wrong. Sometimes, a person needs to consider what is right. And if you really look at it, Jim Crow was basically a quasi-dictatorship, and many abuses took place under it. Very often, laws that are actually abusive towards human rights need to be broken, and struck down.
Quote:
How about Mississippians visiting San Francisco, or vice versa. "This land is your land...this land was made for you and me" comes to mind. There's also the principles totally beyond where you prefer to visit. It's a matter of human dignity - the right not to be judged based on trivial background or personal characteristics. That includes the right to eat at any restaurant you choose. BTW, I'm sure you'd object if some restaurant in Berkeley had a sign - clearly not ironic in intent - "No Red Staters Allowed on Premises For Any Reason". That's judging you on the basis of trivial characteristics, and, if taken far enough, gives a false legitimacy to beat, harass, or discriminate against that group simply because they are part of that group.
THANK YOU!!! This country is for all of its citizens. All of us. You, me, everyone. We can be anywhere we want to be.This is not North Korea, where you have to ask the federal government if you can travel somewhere within your own country. It isn't about "should I be there". Now, there are places I really don't want to go. However, as you say, it is about human dignity. And it is about the freedom to do so. It is about what is right and what is wrong.
I will bring this up. I am happy to be living in 2017, or any time period from 1970 and after(I was born in 1986). I can go anywhere I want, eat anywhere I want. Actually, we all can. We have the same rights. I think about the places I've been, the things I've done. If I was alive in the 1950s, my life would have been limited. At least today, if I have the money, I can buy a house anywhere I want. You can too. No one can tell me "no Blacks allowed". This land is truly "your land" and "my land"
Quote:
Yep, definitely agreed. There was a bigger principle at stake than trying out a restaurant's dish.
Yes. It was about right and wrong. The treatment going on in those days was and is wrong. It needed to end. No excuses.
Quote:
You mean you don't get irked at the media portraying certain areas of the country as "hayseed"...and worst? Or portraying conservatives as prejudiced against races, genders, transsexuals, and gays doesn't get you mad? Or the burning of a US flag to protest government policy? Especially the latter, would that make you want to protest/object the flag burner? If so, you need to get off your high horse about "hurt feelings" (actually I question whether being highly sensitive really is a contempt-worthy trait, but that's another topic I talked a lot of on other threads).
I think this is a matter of "I value my side more than others".
I won't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't care to go into a restaurant or anywhere else where I wasn't wanted.
This isn't about whether or not you care to go in there. This is about you having the freedom to be there. I've been places where I wasn't. I have that freedom. I also have the freedom to withhold my money. Freedom is more important.
You mean you don't get irked at the media portraying certain areas of the country as "hayseed"...and worst? Or portraying conservatives as prejudiced against races, genders, transsexuals, and gays doesn't get you mad? Or the burning of a US flag to protest government policy? Especially the latter, would that make you want to protest/object the flag burner? If so, you need to get off your high horse about "hurt feelings" (actually I question whether being highly sensitive really is a contempt-worthy trait, but that's another topic I talked a lot of on other threads).
Doesn't bother me, how can it hurt me? It can't.
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.
