Petitions spring up in response to New Orleans Mayor's plan to move Confederate statues
86 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48199396]No you don't get it, he lives in Texas, he's seen 25% of all Texans being racist hicks, it's true.[/QUOTE]
25% (probably, a total estimate) of people [I]flying the confederate flag.[/I]
I never said all Texans. I'm the first person to defend Texas when people call it a racist state.
[editline]13th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;48199424]No, you have the same reasoning as people who engage in racial profiling in that you judge people by their appearance rather than their behaviour. Whether it's a choice of theirs or not is irrelevant.
So are symbols fixated or are they not? The swatiska didn't retain its original, historical meaning. It went from a symbol of peace and prosperity to a symbol of fascism.
Replace the flag with a race and reconsider your stance.
How can those negative connotations go away if people keep on insisting that it's the flag's intrinsic meaning? According to your model symbols' connotations can only worsen over time.[/QUOTE]
[I]I am judging them by their behavior.[/I] [B]FLYING A FLAG IS BEHAVIOR, NOT APPEARANCE.[/B]
I know [I]numerous[/I] people who fulfill the whole texan stereotype while flying a flag and wearing cowboy boots and hats and sleeveless shirts and the whole thing. They're not racist.
This is the most absurd strawman argument I've ever heard. It goes from "approximately this many people that fly a confederate flag are racist" to "this many texans are literally completely racist" and "i judge people for flying a confederate flag" to "i am profiling people based on their appearance."
Absurd.
then what is your argument lmao
I've also said that the flag [I]absolutely can[/I] get a [I]better[/I] modern connotation. I have never argued that the flag can only get worse connotations - I quite clearly claimed that it can be made a common symbol for southern heritage and I will be less judgmental of it.
You're not arguing against my opinions. You're assuming I share my opinions with other posters and misrepresenting what I've said. I'm done debating if you're going to continue to do this bullshit - there's several things I've said that you've outright ignored and replaced with the opinions of other posters who are anti-confederate-flag.
A flag is incomparable with a race. I don't see what you're trying to prove with that argument. Flying a flag is a personal choice - having black skin is not.
You're saying that I'm a bigot for avoiding people who fly confederate flags. I would do the same to people who fly nazi flags - does that make me a bigot? Apparently so, because it's somehow the same as avoiding people with black skin. Fuck off.
[editline]13th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48199449]then what is your argument lmao[/QUOTE]
I've said this across like 15 threads and pretty clearly detailed it in this thread. I don't share the majority of my opinions with Hexpunk or other posters, yet people are making it seem like I want the flag to be universally banned and I support removing this statue. I don't.
1. People have a right to make the choice to fly the confederate flag. Flying it does not [I]necessarily[/I] make them racists - there is just a high concentration of confederate-flag-flying racists that detract from the southern heritage connotation and add to the racist connotation.
2. Other people have a right to make judgments of people who fly the confederate flag. It is a choice and not a matter of physical appearance.
3. The confederate flag [I]does[/I] have the ability to gain a more positive connotation and stand for southern heritage, but that is the opposite of what is happening currently, as it has clearly become even more associated with racism after the Charleston massacre.
4. Companies have a right to choose not to sell confederate flags and confederate memorabilia. People have a right to give (or not to give) their business to companies that choose not to sell confederate flags and confederate memorabilia.
6. Removing a historical statue built shortly after the Civil War is fucking absurd and I've already signed the petition in the OP.
7. I recognize that the confederate flag can be a symbol of southern heritage and not one of racism - I just think that the [I]government[/I] flying the confederate flag is inappropriate and largely endorses the racist actions of the KKK and other anti-civil-rights bigots, especially considering that most confederate flags being flown by the government weren't raised until 100 years after the end of the Civil War in order to endorse segregation.
That's the gist of it. Stop strawmanning my positions and I'll actually debate it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48196820]How long until Schools in the South stop teaching about the Civil War and people are forced to learn about it outside of School?[/QUOTE]
Not even Germany stopped teaching about the Nazis, hell I'm pretty sure Germany makes sure every student single student gets the fact the Nazi's existed forced into their brain for the rest of their lives.
You're delusional if you think people are trying to "erase history".
[editline]13th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;48199140]Whether or not they get recognised internationally doesn't determine whether their rebellion was morally right.
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
It's funny when a serial shitposter barges into the thread and completely misses the point.[/QUOTE]
Haha _Axel talking about serial shitposters haha get a load of this
[QUOTE=_Axel;48199076]Since when is treason an objectively evil act? The war of independence was an act of treason towards the British and I rarely see people criticising it.[/QUOTE]
When it's committed on the basis of preserving an unpopular system of economic injustice that stubbornly refuses to die quickly and which treats human beings as property to be bought, sold, and tortured freely. That's when it's evil.
The Confederacy was a failed attempt to hold on to a disappearing way of life. The plantation system and agricultural dependency were on their way out with the introduction of industrialization and the Abolitionist Movement. Slavery's remaining lifespan by the time of secession was limited, despite attempts to expand it into the territories out west, and everybody knew it. It (the CSA) was utterly pointless and was doomed from the onset because it was trying to resist natural economic and social evolution; yet it stubbornly resisted anyway, and the result was the bloodiest conflict ever seen in American history that killed as many as 850,000 people.
Also, the American Civil War is not comparable to the War of Independence, even on the basis of acts of treason. The colonists in the latter's case had legitimate grievances with Parliament, their violations of the traditional rights granted to English subjects and the Declaration of Rights/1689 Bill of Rights, and their suppression of colonial government.
I'm curious exactly as to why a Frenchman is so adamantly defending the Confederacy, given that your own government never gave any diplomatic support or legitimacy to it of any kind (indeed, no national government ever did-- unless you want to count Vatican City in a single letter written in response to Jefferson Davis merely addressing him as "president").
Read the title as "confederate statutes" and was trying to figure out why the OP wasnt making much sense.
[QUOTE=Govna;48199969]When it's committed on the basis of preserving an unpopular system of economic injustice that stubbornly refuses to die quickly and which treats human beings as property to be bought, sold, and tortured freely. That's when it's evil.
The Confederacy was a failed attempt to hold on to a disappearing way of life. The plantation system and agricultural dependency were on their way out with the introduction of industrialization and the Abolitionist Movement. Slavery's remaining lifespan by the time of secession was limited, despite attempts to expand it into the territories out west, and everybody knew it. It (the CSA) was utterly pointless and was doomed from the onset because it was trying to resist natural economic and social evolution; yet it stubbornly resisted anyway, and the result was the bloodiest conflict ever seen in American history that killed as many as 850,000 people.
Also, the American Civil War is not comparable to the War of Independence, even on the basis of acts of treason. The colonists in the latter's case had legitimate grievances with Parliament, their violations of the traditional rights granted to English subjects and the Declaration of Rights/1689 Bill of Rights, and their suppression of colonial government.
I'm curious exactly as to why a Frenchman is so adamantly defending the Confederacy, given that your own government never gave any diplomatic support or legitimacy to it of any kind (indeed, no national government ever did-- unless you want to count Vatican City in a single letter written in response to Jefferson Davis merely addressing him as "president").[/QUOTE]
I've argued this with people a dozen times - the most common retort is that "the confederacy was planning to get rid of slavery anyways." It's false.
Every time I point out that the Constitution of the CSA mandated that all future territories and states [I]must[/I] recognize the institution of slavery, there's no response. One of the major grievances the south had with the Union was that all new territories of the US would ban the institution of slavery - there's no way the Confederacy would forget all about that (very controversial) decision and get rid of slaves anyways. Nobody can cite a law or a ruling that would even hint that slavery was planned to be phased out - because it doesn't exist.
This honestly seems like a waste of money and amounts to nothing more than than political posturing.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48199455]I've also said that the flag [I]absolutely can[/I] get a [I]better[/I] modern connotation. I have never argued that the flag can only get worse connotations - I quite clearly claimed that it can be made a common symbol for southern heritage and I will be less judgmental of it.
You're not arguing against my opinions. You're assuming I share my opinions with other posters and misrepresenting what I've said. I'm done debating if you're going to continue to do this bullshit - there's several things I've said that you've outright ignored and replaced with the opinions of other posters who are anti-confederate-flag.
A flag is incomparable with a race. I don't see what you're trying to prove with that argument. Flying a flag is a personal choice - having black skin is not.
You're saying that I'm a bigot for avoiding people who fly confederate flags. I would do the same to people who fly nazi flags - does that make me a bigot? Apparently so, because it's somehow the same as avoiding people with black skin. Fuck off.[/QUOTE]
Sorry if I was conflating your opinion with others, but your post about why the flag will always retain its historical signification led me to think you thought the same as those posters in that regard. Then you corrected me saying you believed symbols could absolutely change meaning, which directly contradicted your previous post, so I simply have no clue what your stance is.
As for your other point, I simply don't see why having a choice changes anything. Would it be okay to be racist if skin color was a choice? Your reasoning doesn't mention choice at any point. You simply say that people with the characteristics you mention are more likely to be racist, thus it is reasonable to assume they are. By the exact same reasoning, you can say that racial minorities are statistically more likely to commit crimes (because of factors like poverty which increase crime rates) and thus it is reasonable to assume they will. If you disagree with that last statement then you shouldn't use that reasoning, otherwise you're contradicting yourself. You say you're judging people's behaviour by looking at their appearance but their appearance do not directly indicate their behaviour. A lot of death metal fans may look like violent persons at first glance but what you may assume from their appearance is false most of the time.
I know that judging based on appearance is instinctive and something people can't help but do, what I'm saying is they should try to limit those assumptions as much as possible.
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48199943]Haha _Axel talking about serial shitposters haha get a load of this[/QUOTE]
Yeah right I totally forgot my MO is to make passive aggressive snides and then contribute nothing to the argument.
But if you think disagreeing with your opinion equates shitposting then keep at it.
Really disappointing if they take the statues down, I'm a history buff and I'm fascinated by the civil war, its going to be really sad that if I ever go to the south I won't be able to see any of this stuff.
I really don't see how this is such a huge issue, its not like there are engravings under the statues that say things like "In memoriam for the brave Robert E Lee"
[QUOTE=bdd458;48199391]If it's Anecdotal, then it's not a statistic then, is it?
[editline]13th July 2015[/editline]
I'm sorry, you can't just make up a statistic and parade it around as a fact lmao[/QUOTE]
Holy shit you're thick, it was an estimated example and in no way was he trying to parade it around as a fact
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
Sick logical fallacy callout bro haha I use that website too :0
I must by any means prove my point, even if it makes me look like a nitpicky nerd
. A lot of those statues are actual historical sites, as mentioned before. The Lee Circle statue was built in the late 1800s.
Its fucking ridiculous. We are going to destroy historical sites because people can't see it as such.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48201737]Sorry if I was conflating your opinion with others, but your post about why the flag will always retain its historical signification led me to think you thought the same as those posters in that regard. Then you corrected me saying you believed symbols could absolutely change meaning, which directly contradicted your previous post, so I simply have no clue what your stance is.
As for your other point, I simply don't see why having a choice changes anything. Would it be okay to be racist if skin color was a choice? Your reasoning doesn't mention choice at any point. You simply say that people with the characteristics you mention are more likely to be racist, thus it is reasonable to assume they are. By the exact same reasoning, you can say that racial minorities are statistically more likely to commit crimes (because of factors like poverty which increase crime rates) and thus it is reasonable to assume they will. If you disagree with that last statement then you shouldn't use that reasoning, otherwise you're contradicting yourself. You say you're judging people's behaviour by looking at their appearance but their appearance do not directly indicate their behaviour. A lot of death metal fans may look like violent persons at first glance but what you may assume from their appearance is false most of the time.
I know that judging based on appearance is instinctive and something people can't help but do, what I'm saying is they should try to limit those assumptions as much as possible.
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
Yeah right I totally forgot my MO is to make passive aggressive snides and then contribute nothing to the argument.
But if you think disagreeing with your opinion equates shitposting then keep at it.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what to say if you can't see the difference between flying a flag and having a certain skin color. I don't judge people based on their appearance - I already said I'm friends with numerous people who follow the exact stereotypes of "Texan rednecks," from cowboy boots to branding themselves with hot irons. I'm friends with people who dress emo and punk and I don't expect them to shoot up schools. I don't expect my redneck-fashion friends to be racists either. I'm friends with black people who sag their pants and I don't expect them to be in gangs.
You're trying to make it out as if I'm some sort of judgmental person who's unfairly saying that anyone flying a confederate flag is racist, when I've clearly said the opposite of that like 4 times in this thread. The confederate flag isn't [i]necessarily[/i] racist. It doesn't [i]necessarily[/i] have to have a negative connotation - the point I've been trying to make is that [i]because of the origin of the flag[/i], the negative connotations will never wholly disappear no matter how much people "reclaim" it as a symbol of southern heritage. I'm also saying that the current cultural trend is working [I]backwards[/I] from "making it a flag of southern heritage" - it is being viewed more and more commonly as an offensive flag that promotes racism over the view that it is a flag of southern heritage.
Flying a confederate flag isn't necessarily racist. I've said that an inordinate number of times. There are many people who view it as a flag of southern heritage - that's great. There are also a lot of people who don't view it as that. It is impossible to prevent someone from judging you for flying a confederate flag. You might view it as a symbol of southern heritage, but others will not and they'll see you flying an offensive and racist flag. It isn't necessarily a racist flag and it isn't necessarily a flag of southern heritage - this isn't a 100% either/or situation. A lot of southerners would never even think of it as racist - and a lot of northerners would be hard-pressed to see it as [i]anything but[/i] racist. It's a social intricacy that leads to a lot of confusion.
You could fly the flag of the NSDAP in support of their financial policies and vehemently disagree with everything else they did, and the average person will still make the (completely rational) assumption that you're not worth talking to. You can fly a confederate flag without supporting the racism that was the backbone of the entire confederacy, and the majority of people [I]who haven't been raised to view the confederate flag as a symbol of southern heritage[/I] will view it as you tacitly (or explicitly) supporting the undeniably racist and oppressive views that the confederacy fought and died for.
I'm starting to think this is boiling down to a cultural barrier. I honestly don't see how a French guy commenting about social and cultural intricacies halfway across the globe can honestly argue about it with someone who's lived here since he was 2 years old. By now, if you've actually read my posts, I've very clearly stated my views on it and [I]somehow[/I] you're still either skimming over them or not understanding what I'm trying to say.
If you want to express southern heritage without explicitly using the flag of a rebellion that fought and died to protect slavery, just fly the fucking Bonnie Blue or the Burnet Flag. Nobody in Texas (or anywhere in the south) would ever even perceive that flag as racist - because it was a flag made by individual southerners to support the individual southerners fighting and dying for independence, no matter how misguided that war for independence was. It was never an official flag of the CSA and was never legitimized because of that, and its origins come far before the CSA ever existed.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48206442]Holy shit you're thick, it was an estimated example and in no way was he trying to parade it around as a fact
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
Sick logical fallacy callout bro haha I use that website too :0
I must by any means prove my point, even if it makes me look like a nitpicky nerd[/QUOTE]
"Estimated example" my ass. You don't make up statistics or numbers to try to prove your point, period - especially when it comes to portraying a group of people a certain way.
I called him out for making shit up, nothing more, nothing less. But anything for those SICK zingers, am I right Aldawolf?
[QUOTE=bdd458;48207425]"Estimated example" my ass. You don't make up statistics or numbers to try to prove your point, period - especially when it comes to portraying a group of people a certain way.
I called him out for making shit up, nothing more, nothing less. But anything for those SICK zingers, am I right Aldawolf?[/QUOTE]
It was an estimated example. Have you never once in your life heard someone use a percentage as an estimate? I wasn't aware that adding "%" means it's indisputably fact.
"man my bag of chips is like 25% full this sucks"
"SHOW ME A STUDY THAT'S INEXACT I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CITE THE STUDY WE BETTER COUNT THESE CHIPS OUT RIGHT NOW AND MEASURE IT BY VOLUME"
There's a huge fucking difference between talking about a bag of chips (which you have in your hand) and the [I]beliefs of an entire population[/I].
[QUOTE=bdd458;48207608]There's a huge fucking difference between talking about a bag of chips (which you have in your hand) and the [I]beliefs of an entire population[/I].[/QUOTE]
This is getting stupidly off topic and nobody cares that I used a number, but I regularly see Facepunch talk about how radical feminists are stupid - that's 100% of all radical feminists, all stupid, no studies backing it up at all, they're all stupid. That's the beliefs of an entire population. All stupid, 100%.
But now I say around a quarter of people who fly a confederate flag are racist and I'm "asspulling a statistic." Fuck off. If I had said everyone who flies a confederate flag is racist without using the percentage symbol you'd just write me off as someone with a different opinion or an idiot instead of complaining about asspulling. It's no different that I used a number.
I've plainly stated my views on this entire situation in my posts and all you guys want to do is say "HE ASSPULLED 25%!"
Okay - sorry, let's move on, I've already corrected that and said that [I]from my own experiences[/I], [B]approximately[/B] a quarter of the people [I]that I have seen flying a confederate flag[/I] have done certain things that could [I]possibly have been considered racist.[/I] Is that good enough?
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=bdd458;48199391]If it's Anecdotal, then it's not a statistic then, is it?
[editline]13th July 2015[/editline]
I'm sorry, you can't just make up a statistic and parade it around as a fact lmao[/QUOTE]
I'm also going to point out [I]that I never fucking called it a statistic.[/I] You made that part up because I used a percentage symbol. I never said the word statistic or implied that it was a statistic. Stop making things up, you're asspulling!
You said "25%" of people who own the Confederate Flag were racists, if that's not a "statistic" I don't know what is lmao
but whatever man, believe what you want about it, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Nobody here is ever going to convince anyone or change anyone's viewpoint, not even those of the silent observers. There is far too much hostility and lack of concession for any forward progress to be made beyond just getting more shit flung all over the place.
[editline]14th July 2015[/editline]
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the preacher men prefer giving their sermons to their respective choirs
[QUOTE=bdd458;48207695]You said "25%" of people who own the Confederate Flag were racists, if that's not a "statistic" I don't know what is lmao[/QUOTE]
I'd love to discuss the controversy of the removal of this statue. Even though this thread started out with people not reading the article and assuming the petitions were to get rid of the statue.
I'm happy you ignored the entirety of the rest of my post like you've done for every other post I've made in this thread.
I corrected myself and apologized, but you ignored that and continued to complain. Sorry I misrepresented my opinion and personal experiences as statistical fact. Let's move on already. This is petty.
Maybe I spoke too soon about lack of concession, that was very refreshing .Isak.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48192743]Removing monuments isn't erasing history. Don't be ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Monuments are a big part of learning about history and connecting to it.
Good example is pearl harbor, the USS Missouri & Arizona. Yes you learn about it and know it is was a terrible attack, but you truly don't get the full idea until you step on the platform that is above the Arizona and see the ship and know there are still bodies unrecoverable. You can see the oil still leaking from the ship.
[QUOTE=MR-X;48210022]Monuments are a big part of learning about history and connecting to it.
Good example is pearl harbor, the USS Missouri & Arizona. Yes you learn about it and know it is was a terrible attack, but you truly don't get the full idea until you step on the platform that is above the Arizona and see the ship and know there are still bodies unrecoverable. You can see the oil still leaking from the ship.[/QUOTE]
The Arizona and Missouri are good monuments/memorials, but they're terrible comparisons to the body bust of General Lee in Lee Circle. We can actually learn things from them.
The wreck of the Arizona provides the ability to encounter first-hand a serious American warship casualty from World War II and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that motivated our decision to enter the war completely. Not to mention its archaeological value to scientists and its status as a war grave that still holds the bodies of hundreds of personnel who died when it was sunk and the ashes of others who have been cremated and scattered over/interred inside it by the Navy.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/USS_Arizona_Memorial_(aerial_view).jpg[/t]
Likewise, the Missouri was the last battleship ever commissioned by the Navy, saw action at Iwo Jima and Okinawa during World War II and as well served in the Korean War and even Desert Storm, wasn't decomissioned until 1992 after having been modernized, and perhaps most importantly was the historical site of Japan's unconditional surrender and therefore the end of World War II-- the most significant war in human history. Add to that its practical educational value as a museum ship and as a pivotal treasure to the Iowa Class battleships, it deserves to be preserved of course.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)_arrives_in_Pearl_Harbor.jpg[/t]
Please explain to me how this:
[t]http://tomseymore.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/1024px-leecircle30nov07back.jpg[/t]
...has any comparable value whatsoever to the USS Arizona's wreck and memorial and the USS Missouri's new life as a museum ship.
It doesn't. It's not artistically unpleasant, but it has no real value to it at all. It's not a gravesite, it's not a landmark of a historical occurrence, it's not a 40,000 ton battleship... it's a 130ish-year-old full body bronze bust of the Confederate States' General-in-Chief/commander of the ANV that was put up not 20 years after the Civil War ended and which has been a site of pilgrimage for segregational racists and Southern sympathizers for decades now.
It needed to be removed a long time ago. Not destroyed, because it has value to the memory of the man who sculpted it (who also created many other sculptures in remembrance of the war), just taken down and the pillar itself dismantled. Plant a tree where it used to be, plant flowers. Fuck, stick a bust of Huey Long in its place.
But the idea that it should be acceptable to commemorate someone who fought against this country in this public kind of way is ridiculous.
[editline]15 July 2015[/editline]
The greatest mistake this country ever made in the 19th century with repercussions still affecting it to this day was not pursuing a more aggressive and scientific policy of social reengineering in the south following the Civil War aiming to completely eradicate Confederate sympathy (similar to what we did in Germany and Austria following World War II with our de-Nazification strategy). That's why we're still left today with so much controversy and division over this treason that needlessly cost the lives of as many as 850,000 Americans in a futile, ridiculous attempt to hold on to a failing agricultural plantation system with introduction of industrialization and slavery.
On the treason basis alone, as I've said before, it's ridiculous that we gloriously commemorate in public these figures as we do with bullshit justifications about "heritage". The Confederacy and its treason is not a heritage worth being proud of or sympathetic to. If you want to frame it or talk about it within an educational context, fine.
But that's not the honest reason behind most of these statues and streets and schools named for and dedicated to Confederate figures; the honest reason was historically when they were erected and named/dedicated a Southern stubbornness and resistance to admit what was done by them was wrong, and that they were fairly and rightfully defeated in the end.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48207319]I don't know what to say if you can't see the difference between flying a flag and having a certain skin color. I don't judge people based on their appearance - I already said I'm friends with numerous people who follow the exact stereotypes of "Texan rednecks," from cowboy boots to branding themselves with hot irons. I'm friends with people who dress emo and punk and I don't expect them to shoot up schools. I don't expect my redneck-fashion friends to be racists either. I'm friends with black people who sag their pants and I don't expect them to be in gangs.
You're trying to make it out as if I'm some sort of judgmental person who's unfairly saying that anyone flying a confederate flag is racist, when I've clearly said the opposite of that like 4 times in this thread. The confederate flag isn't [i]necessarily[/i] racist. It doesn't [i]necessarily[/i] have to have a negative connotation - the point I've been trying to make is that [i]because of the origin of the flag[/i], the negative connotations will never wholly disappear no matter how much people "reclaim" it as a symbol of southern heritage. I'm also saying that the current cultural trend is working [I]backwards[/I] from "making it a flag of southern heritage" - it is being viewed more and more commonly as an offensive flag that promotes racism over the view that it is a flag of southern heritage.
Flying a confederate flag isn't necessarily racist. I've said that an inordinate number of times. There are many people who view it as a flag of southern heritage - that's great. There are also a lot of people who don't view it as that. It is impossible to prevent someone from judging you for flying a confederate flag. You might view it as a symbol of southern heritage, but others will not and they'll see you flying an offensive and racist flag. It isn't necessarily a racist flag and it isn't necessarily a flag of southern heritage - this isn't a 100% either/or situation. A lot of southerners would never even think of it as racist - and a lot of northerners would be hard-pressed to see it as [i]anything but[/i] racist. It's a social intricacy that leads to a lot of confusion.
You could fly the flag of the NSDAP in support of their financial policies and vehemently disagree with everything else they did, and the average person will still make the (completely rational) assumption that you're not worth talking to. You can fly a confederate flag without supporting the racism that was the backbone of the entire confederacy, and the majority of people [I]who haven't been raised to view the confederate flag as a symbol of southern heritage[/I] will view it as you tacitly (or explicitly) supporting the undeniably racist and oppressive views that the confederacy fought and died for.
I'm starting to think this is boiling down to a cultural barrier. I honestly don't see how a French guy commenting about social and cultural intricacies halfway across the globe can honestly argue about it with someone who's lived here since he was 2 years old. By now, if you've actually read my posts, I've very clearly stated my views on it and [I]somehow[/I] you're still either skimming over them or not understanding what I'm trying to say.
If you want to express southern heritage without explicitly using the flag of a rebellion that fought and died to protect slavery, just fly the fucking Bonnie Blue or the Burnet Flag. Nobody in Texas (or anywhere in the south) would ever even perceive that flag as racist - because it was a flag made by individual southerners to support the individual southerners fighting and dying for independence, no matter how misguided that war for independence was. It was never an official flag of the CSA and was never legitimized because of that, and its origins come far before the CSA ever existed.[/QUOTE]
I understand that you have a reasonable view of things and can see past people's appearance, but when you justify people judging others at face value you use the exact same reasoning as those who defend racial profiling, a policy I doubt you agree with. To defend one and not the other when they're both based on the same premise is mentally dissonant. Stop saying "flying a flag and belonging to a certain race is different", at no point in your reasoning does this difference come into place.
Ideally people will just stop making assumptions based on their appearance and the symbols they sport. Do you agree with that statement or do you think it's necessary to be prejudiced?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48198649]the fact you changed it to it is pretty petty in the first place tbh. there's a serious discussion going on about this shit, you aren't proving any kind of point by changing your e-portrait to a picture of it other than looking like a knee-jerking muppet really.
[/QUOTE]
Because some racist asshat decided to shoot up a church, it's suddenly ok to remove or deface historical monuments. Sorry what were you saying about knee-jerk reacitons?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.