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.
"A 58%-majority say they have neither a positive or negative reaction when seeing the Confederate flag. Not surprisingly, there are disparate reactions to the Civil War flag of the South among different demographic groups. Far more African Americans than whites have a negative reaction to the Confederate flag (41% to 29%). Still, about as many blacks have no reaction (45%) as a negative reaction to the Confederate flag."
________________
ad nauseum these ideas are on their way ---- out. Also, just so you know people of other races fly the rebel flag as well ... so there's that.
I already know the blue.
I also know you've probably seen my posts before where I have stated that the main issue of black people in America today is embracing an inferiority complex. That is caused precisely due to our country's history of white supremacy.
Also, I stated I am a black American. I know the history of my people and the history of the CSA and that specific flag itself. It is a symbol of the old south and it represents the "values" of the old south. The primary value of the old south ardently wanted to protect was the system of white supremacy and the right to own slaves as "property."
When I see the flag I don't have a reaction either...I lived in the south for nearly 20 years and saw the flag every day. But that doesn't mean I don't know what it is about. Just like the reliefs on Stone Mountain in GA are a monument to white supremacy, the confederate flag is a banner of white supremacy. You may not want to accept that because you think "white supremacy" means white people when it doesn't.
So without Frederick Douglass slavery would still exist? Why was it abolished in the British and French empires? Or in Latin-America?
There is no doubt that Frederick Douglass is an important figure. But he didn't shape policy, he at best popularized it. If abolishing slavery wasn't in the "National Interests", it wouldn't have been done.
The whole world had been moving away from serfdom and slavery for decades before our Civil War. Why?
Everyone wants to control how other people vote. Why do you think you're in this forum? You are trying to convince other people to think like you. Why do you think government education exists? Or the corporate media?
And aren't democrats a bunch of elitists who think conservatives are too stupid to vote? And isn't this country founded on the belief that the common people are incapable of making decisions for themselves, and so they should elect rulers who will make decisions for them?
Are black people not fighting for control of our government? Do black people care more about democracy than white people? Look at Africa today. South Africa, Zimbabwe, or any other black-majority country. Does making whites a minority turn a country into a racial utopia?
And why would anyone care about democracy? Shouldn't you only care about getting what you want? If you knew you would lose in every election, would you even bother voting? And that assumes that democracies aren't being manipulated by money and the media in the first place.
If you think racism is only a white problem, you are blind and delusional. Racism is just the reality of our world. And race doesn't only refer to color. The Tutsis and Hutus were basically fighting a "Race War".
Race really just refers to "tribe". In Europe, race mostly refers to something like "national origin". The "German Race", just means "The German Tribe". And tribe refers to "People of a common ancestry who are genetically/culturally/geographically distinct."
And if you want to know where the biggest racists in the world are, don't look at Europe, look at Asia.
No, we are together because you fight against anyone who wants to be separate. You won't allow us to be separate, and you demand integration.
On the blue - it would still exist in America if it were not for Frederick Douglass and his cohort. We are not speaking of England or Latin America....
LOL on the pink - that is exactly what he did - he popularized it as being in the nation's "best interest" and convinced a substantial amount of people in the northern US that it would win the war to make it about ending slavery. And note, I don't give him all the credit as he is only one man. There were MANY people who worked with him who pushed this same narrative some white as well as black activists.
On the green - again, we are speaking of America. We are not speaking of "the world." Each region is unique. You should stay focused on the subject at hand.
On the black, everyone doesn't want to control how people vote....I certainly do not. I think it is in the best interest to let people vote their own interest. I'm on this forum because I like to discuss politics on forums. It is less contentious in real life. Plus the forum is pretty entertaining to me.
I've also never said that racism is only a "white problem." Anyone and everyone can be a racist. But my post was not speaking on "racism." I was specific that I was speaking about the "ideology of white supremacy" and that is a whole other subject.
You are making this a black vs white think in regards to the orange above and getting off focus with mention of other countries/regions again.
Me speaking with you started with me stating that Lincoln was a white supremacist. You insinuated that black people amongst others saw him as a "savior" or some sort of 100% positive figure. I countered that assumption of yours to tell you that black people by and large, today, do not view Lincoln as a savior. That is all. Those of us who are learned, we know he was a white supremacist and was only out for the best interest of the country and didn't care really about slaves, until, as you noted, he was persuaded to do so (by Fred and friends) because it would give him a political advantage and military advantage in the war.
All the other stuff you are talking about is off task to what I initially stated. I don't have a positive view of Democrats either. Both Republicans and Democrats as parties IMO do not have the specific interest of black people in their platforms. Black American politics has never thought that any particular party is 100% better than another and never has thought that we can 100% trust white politicians especially because there is nothing historically that shows that this has ever been done for our demographic. A review of the political history of this nation shows that black people were pawns and thought of an inferior beings from the very beginnings. Our sub-culture as black Americans was founded upon the end of the Revolutionary War to combat the hypocrisy of the US's founding documents in relation to "freedom" and "liberty" while it enslaved millions of people and tried to claim they were not people. So my statements are from these historical facts. Not from emotion. I have no overt views of whites in America. I don't care how you vote and I don't care if you fly a confederate flag. Only thing I care about is you assuming or telling me that I or my people view Lincoln as a savior when I don't and we don't to any wide degree (that is paternalism) or that the "values" of the CSA states wasn't based on them owning "property" in the form of slaves. The highest vlaue they held was that whites were superior to blacks. That is a fact and that is what the flag represents of them as a value to me and many other black people. Doesn't mean we'll have a "reaction." If I was polled I'd say I don't have a reaction to it either. That's because I know what it means and what it's history is so it is not surprising to me.
Black people have been advocating against the flying of the Confederate flag since the 1870s. Only reason why you don't know about it is because you don't know about black history. White media often ignored the stories and complaints of the black populace. It is only in the mainstream media today because of social media. Black people are heavy social media users - much moreso than other portions of the US population and we are historically big mouths where we will yell about our issues. There is just a larger platform today and these gripes are much harder for the mainstream to ignore because Twitter and FB and IG posts get more attention than media outlets/papers/channels which forces those media outlets/papers/channels to report on social media instead of maintaining a "traditional" journalist tradition.
Frederick Douglas and W.E.B. DuBois staunchly opposed honoring Confederate soldiers. They saw the Confederate cause as a cause rooted in keeping slavery around. And this is the thing. Back in the Jim Crow era, Blacks who opposed the Confederate flag or opposed Confederate monuments usually didn't say so. Speak out against it and you might get killed. Many Blacks knew to just keep their mouths shut, if nothing else, to survive. On one hand, Black Americans have historically opened their mouths to express their grievances. it also depended on where. In the South there were many cases where Blacks were not as likely to speak out. In the 50s and 60s, Blacks started speaking out more.
Personally, I don't think this is ignorance of black history. This is more or less willful stupidity. Saying that Blacks are manipulated by the media is a covert way to say "Black grievances are not legitimate" or "Black people are too stupid to know what they want".
I will say this about social media. Social allows a platform to voice one's grievances, and broadcast it to large audiences. Social media is showing what has always been there.
Wikipedia, even though I don't like that site all the time has a good account of this riot and how it was tied up in white supremacy and the "old values" of the south.
I do believe that many whites confuse "white supremacy" with "racism" when they are not the same thing and feel that is what you are doing.
In Wilmington, NC (where some of my relatives lived at the time BTW which is how I learned of this event - doing genealogical research some years ago) white men were upset that black men held positions of power in that area. In response to what they deemed "n**ger rule" they established "White Supremacy" clubs and conventions and even ran a political campaign for "white supremacy."
They were embracing the old "values" of the south and were applauded all over the south for massacring hundreds of black people and running them out of town and even taking over positions of black elected officials - it was literally a coup d'etat. The federal government did nothing to assist the black people of Wilmington and interestingly, many of those involved with events leading up to this massacre - the white men who started it, they were elected into positions of power in NC and established Jim Crow in the state to prevent black people from voting or ever holding positions of political power again. They specifically stated that whites were superior and that blacks should never be allowed to have any sort of rule over them or anyone.
These were the values of the old south and that is what the flag represents. Many whites are ignorant about the history of these sorts of events and the history of Jim Crow period. Jim Crow was established all over the south after Wilmington and it was a concerted effort to implant a system of white supremacy like what they had prior to the Civil War. This is also the era when a majority of these Confederate monuments were put up - they were celebrating the re-establishment of white supremacy. Black people overwhelmingly spoke out about these events and tried to stop the monuments and flying of the flgs but they were ignored because northerners didn't care about them and their problems either - they had similar inferior views of blacks as southerners so overlooked Jim Crow while also keeping their own racial superiority "traditions" in northern states and sometimes strengthening them with state and local laws (like school segregation - many schools in the north were not segregated until around 1900).
Again, I know of this sort of history. Any time I see someone say that the Civil War wasn't about "slavery" or that the flag isn't a banner for white supremacy, I just think those people either are willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant, meaning they don't know about these things. Most I do believe are just plain ignorant because not many white people especially get all that "into" black history. More and more whites are interested in black history though and I think that's a great thing because you have a more balanced view of "the race problem."
Frederick Douglas and W.E.B. DuBois staunchly opposed honoring Confederate soldiers. They saw the Confederate cause as a cause rooted in keeping slavery around. And this is the thing. Back in the Jim Crow era, Blacks who opposed the Confederate flag or opposed Confederate monuments usually didn't say so. Speak out against it and you might get killed. Many Blacks knew to just keep their mouths shut, if nothing else, to survive. On one hand, Black Americans have historically opened their mouths to express their grievances. it also depended on where. In the South there were many cases where Blacks were not as likely to speak out. In the 50s and 60s, Blacks started speaking out more.
Personally, I don't think this is ignorance of black history. This is more or less willful stupidity. Saying that Blacks are manipulated by the media is a covert way to say "Black grievances are not legitimate" or "Black people are too stupid to know what they want".
I will say this about social media. Social allows a platform to voice one's grievances, and broadcast it to large audiences. Social media is showing what has always been there.
IMO the bold is basically continuing the tradition of white supremacy ideology, which dictated that us black people don't know what's good for us, we are like perpetual children, and don't have the cognitive capacity to "think" and make valid decisions about our experiences and lives.
FYI - I'm not "angry" lol. I'm just stating the historical facts.
I just thought it was hilarious that you spent an entire post complaining about white people assuming they know what black people think. Only to turn around and make a second post where you claim to know exactly what white people think. And that you don't even care to hear what they have to say, because you know their secret hearts.
It seemed at once hypocritical and ironic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I don't think any culture is superior to another.
Is that what you actually believe? Look at the cultures of the world, and of history. Are you really going to stand there and lie to my face?
What should America look like? And should America exist at all? What do you think of a border-less world? Will that be an improvement? Is that what you want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
In regards to state's rights - the south wanted to right to hold slaves and not have their property rights over said slaves reduced or ridiculed or contained in any way.
You refuse to distinguish governments from people. Most-likely because you assume them to be the same thing. But is the American government the same as the American people? Is the Russian government the same as the Russian people? Is the Chinese government the same as the Chinese people? Is the British government the same as the British people?
You need to learn how to criticize one without the other. Every government deserves to be criticized, but if you, as an American, lump the British people in with the British government, the British people will be forced to defend themselves, and by doing so, defend their government. And you will have accomplished nothing.
It is true to say that the southern governments fought to protect their property, but it isn't true to say that the southern people fought to protect their property. Since the vast-majority of southerners had no slaves at all, or any other property for that matter.
The southern people believed they were fighting for freedom. They thought they were fighting the second Revolutionary War. And when you slander the southern soldier by declaring over and over again that he was fighting for slavery or white-supremacy, you are slandering many people's ancestors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Libertarians and anarchists are overwhelmingly confederate sympathizers because they support a superiority system.
Without knowing the outcome, and if I was forced to take a side in 1861, I most definitely wouldn't have fought for the North. Because in 1861, not a single Northern soldier could have possibly believed he was fighting for anything other than tyranny.
It would be as if California tried to secede after the 2016 election, and Trump sent the Army into California to prevent it. What would the soldiers have been fighting for? To preserve the union? What does that even mean?
I am probably biased, insofar as I am always in favor of secession. It doesn't matter where it is, it is always a good thing. Brexit, California, Texas, Catalonia, Basque Country, Tibet, Quebec, Scotland, Chechnya, Kosovo, I am in favor of secession everywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
They donot believe that "racism" exist when it does. I've mentioned before they are very naive when it comes to human nature. IMO they are also very wishy-washy with their fabricated "what-if" and scenarios.
Who doesn't believe racism exists? What libertarians actually believe is that "the state" does more harm than good.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frederic Bastiat
"There is no doubt that a reduction of political action in favor of the liberty of social life, would be a great benefit to society, but it would in no way satisfy the persistent champions of the State. To them, the State, as providence, as director of the social life, dispenser of justice, and regulator of public order, is a necessity. In other words, whether they admit it or not, whether they call themselves republicans, democrats, or even socialists, they always must have available a more or less ignorant, immature, incompetent people, or, bluntly speaking, a kind of canaille to govern. This would make them, without doing violence to their lofty altruism and modesty, keep the highest places for themselves, so as always to devote themselves to the common good, of course. As the privileged guardians of the human flock, strong in their virtuous devotion and their superior intelligence, while prodding the people along and urging it on for its own good and well-being, they would be in a position to do a little discreet fleecing of that flock for their own benefit." - Mikhail Bakunin, Theory of the State, 1873
If you really think Black people are that stupid, then perhaps you shouldn't be on this thread. Last I checked, 90 percent of the nation's Black population was in the South. Now it's 55 percent of the nation's Black population in the South. Black people didn't need to the media to keep them in fear. Black people have personal experiences for that.
Now, what does any of this have to do with how Blacks perceive the Confederate flag? Blacks weren't representing southern heritage with the Confederate flag back in the 1900s or the 1950s. They aren't doing now. Do you really think it was the media telling them that, or is that something you keep telling yourself?
Quote:
They aren't doing now.
How soon you seem to forget all that that has been shown to you. Need me to do that again, so you can say stupid people?
I also know you've probably seen my posts before where I have stated that the main issue of black people in America today is embracing an inferiority complex. That is caused precisely due to our country's history of white supremacy.
Also, I stated I am a black American. I know the history of my people and the history of the CSA and that specific flag itself. It is a symbol of the old south and it represents the "values" of the old south. The primary value of the old south ardently wanted to protect was the system of white supremacy and the right to own slaves as "property."
When I see the flag I don't have a reaction either...I lived in the south for nearly 20 years and saw the flag every day. But that doesn't mean I don't know what it is about. Just like the reliefs on Stone Mountain in GA are a monument to white supremacy, the confederate flag is a banner of white supremacy. You may not want to accept that because you think "white supremacy" means white people when it doesn't.
We presently believe it is (between God and a woman) moral to kill unborn babies. What happens in the future where that way of life comes into question, because they may then deem it immoral ... they will do to us then as we do to those that lived 158 years before we were even born.
People evolve and so do their 'values'. Fetal rights will be the future debates, I'm sure.
The CSA was for preserving their way of life. What was moral to do then, is not considered the same now.
Apparently people do not have a problem with the government making moral decisions for them today. They don't mind giving their labored money to the government either ... I'm not calling it political religion for nothing, because it is what it is. But instead of passing around the collection plate at the end of a church service to help keep the lights on at the church ... we get the money deduction straight away from our pay checks, just so the government can do what? Ruin ... oh no run our lives.
Stop with the inferiority stuff, it isn't a good look on any one.
As for as those stats ... what that says to me is 'we' are moving forward (except for the fringes) and leaving the culture of 158 years ago where it belongs ... in the past.
It basically tries to claim that there was practically a utopia in the south before some politicians started scaring white people.
The timeline of the article seems to suggest that segregation started in 1894, as the result of the "Fusion" political strategy. But Plessy v. Ferguson was the result of a law passed in 1890. And Frederick Douglass discussed the same concerns of whites before the Civil War even ended.
"Objections to the abolition of slavery are often urged with a show of sincere solicitude for the welfare of the slaves themselves. It is said, what will you do with them? They can't take care of themselves; they would all come to the North; they would not work; they would become a burden upon the State, and a blot upon society; They'd cut their masters' throats; They would cheapen labor, and crowd out the poor white laborer from employment; Their former masters would not employ them, and they would necessarily become vagrants, paupers and criminals, overrunning all our alms houses, jails and prisons. The laboring classes among the whites would come in bitter conflict with them in all the avenues of labor, and regarding them as occupying places and filling positions which should be occupied and filled by white men; a fierce war of races would be the inevitable consequence, and the black race would, of course, (being the weaker,) be exterminated." - Frederick Douglass, 1862
The article also discusses class, and says... "As the Charlotte Chronicle, a newspaper predominantly for white readers, wrote in 1887, wealth and position erected barriers 'more despotic, if anything, than those based on prejudices of color.' "
Why did the article mention that the Charlotte Chronicle was a newspaper predominantly for white readers? And if segregation by wealth was even more despotic than segregation by race, by what method was class-segregation carried out?
There is no class warfare among poor people of the same class ... to combat this segregation had to be invented ... "Yet they had little connection with poor voters, and so had few ideas about how to address their economic concerns. Instead, they tried to convince poor whites that they should not associate with blacks in any way."
On the blue - it would still exist in America if it were not for Frederick Douglass and his cohort. We are not speaking of England or Latin America.
You refuse to speak of any other country because your logic wouldn't apply. You have deluded yourself into believing the world is ruled by racism, when in reality it is ruled by money.
If you want to know why Britain abolished slavery, all you have to do is ask why abolishing slavery was beneficial to Britain's money.
And why did the British Empire use its Navy to block the African slave-trade? What was in it for them?
The reason you are confused, is because you see that there are "do-gooders" fighting, so you assume that the change happened because they were fighting for it. Which isn't entirely wrong, but leaves out half of the story.
Milton Friedman explained it best when he discussed the alliance between "do-gooders" and "special-interests".
The money finds these do-gooders who are pushing for changes that benefit them, and they basically give the do-gooders money, and a podium, and put them on TV.
This is why only the do-gooders who are pushing for policies which "grow the economy" or which "serve the national interests" ever get heard. And everyone else gets ignored.
What do you think the purpose of women's emancipation was? Why did the money want that?
What makes America a successful country? Why is America a superpower?
Money and power is all that matters in this world. That is why governments do what they do, and not for any sense of justice. Not America, not the Soviet Union, not China, not Russia, or anywhere else. But we tell ourselves nice little stories to justify ourselves, and make us feel good.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-19-2019 at 10:51 PM..
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.
