[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;48034162]I don't think everyone who wants to buy a confederate flag is filled with racism and hatred. Some do want to honor the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their lives, and cities/towns that were destroyed in the war.
This is getting a bit stupid.[/QUOTE]
It makes about as much sense as having the British flag flying in the same manner because there were British loyalists who likewise didn’t win in that conflict either. So why should any state capital fly the flag of a non-existent country, hmm?
[editline]24th June 2015[/editline]
Time to move on and stop dwelling in the past. Might want to learn a bit from the Germans here.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48041086]It makes about as much sense as having the British flag flying in the same manner because there were British loyalists who likewise didn’t win in that conflict either. So why should any state capital fly the flag of a non-existent country, hmm?[/QUOTE]
The SC state capitol was burned by Union forces in the Civil War while only partially constructed. It's a Confederate war memorial site along with being the state capitol building.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;48039007]Maybe if your heritage is a person in your family being a member of a [B]treasonous [/B]army fighting to keep the right to own living humans, it's not something you should honor.[/QUOTE]
It's not treason for a sovereign nation to evict an occupying foreign army from its territory
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48041099]The SC state capitol was burned by Union forces in the Civil War while only partially constructed. It's a Confederate war memorial site along with being the state capitol building.[/QUOTE]
My point is, some symbols can be so irrefutably tarnished by hate that they no longer can be used in a neutral setting, as they are now purely signs of hatred. Like the Swastika, use of the stars and bars in anything other than a historic setting (museums, movies) should be prosecuted, or at the very least, followed closely.
[editline]24th June 2015[/editline]
Hell, I'm not even American and I "get" it, we have something rather similar going on here (muh Falklands!!111!1!!), and it's a bruised ego thing. Just let it go.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48041123]My point is, some symbols can be so irrefutably tarnished by hate that they no longer can be used in a neutral setting, as they are now purely signs of hatred. Like the Swastika, use of the stars and bars in anything other than a historic setting (museums, movies) should be prosecuted, or at the very least, followed closely.[/QUOTE]
And I'm telling you as someone who lives in a place where Southern people of all colors fly that flag that it hasn't been "irrefutably tarnished" to us.
Case in point: We see people flying Argentine flags with the Falkland islands plastered all over them, with "Falklands are Argentine" in Spanish written on them. To me, it's pretty much the same thing.
Well, it's not the same thing. I don't know how else to explain this to you.
No other way. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;48041102]It's not treason for a sovereign nation to evict an occupying foreign army from its territory[/QUOTE]
lol
Alright, so let's go over that argument, right?
Argument: The Confederacy was acting in opposition to an occupying power/foreign invader. It was a sovereign nation.
Reality: The Confederacy had no legal grounds to secede, and was not recognized as a sovereign state by any country. When the Southern states ratified the Constitution, they did so knowing that they would be dissolved as sovereign entities and would exist as merely administrative units within a republic. This was partly what the hubub about the 3/5 Clause and the Tenth Amendment was about, but they agreed to it nonetheless. Without the United States, there are no state- a local administrative body can not exist separate from its parent body. de facto sure, but on paper how can something that exists only as a subdivision exist separate from the whole? As such, states seceding actually represented rebellion and treason by the acting governments- the people- of those subdivisions. Your state was not sovereign because there was no legal ability for it to be so. It was an act of treason and rebellion, a revolt, and the Union had every legal and political right to suppress revolt within its territory. The South agreed to the conditions of federation, the revolt was a show of their true face: backstabbing hypocrites and liars.
"But what about reality? Your legal arguments don't count for shit if they really secede." And your arguments don't count for shit when the South was burning and crushed because the Union stopped your failed rebellion. The South fails because it had no right to secede, and its fails because it didn't have the power to sustain its treasonous rebellion. In order to be a sovereign nation, you first have to be sovereign, which since the Southern economy would't have have been able to maintain itself after the war anyway in any other way than an underdeveloped agrarian shithole on par with Mexico or Haiti, and as the Union clearly showed the South wasn't sovereign by...y'know...crushing it- then that's bunk. Foreign army? You mean the army of the US, which included the territory in which the South was revolting, which they had no legal principle or grounds to secede from? In order to have a foreign invader, you must first be separate from them. In order to be separate, you need to be sovereign, and in order to be sovereign, you need to maintain your claim to sovereignty, or by definition you are not sovereign.
Another load of nonsense from people whose nostalgia and revisionism doesn't match with the reality of the situation at the time.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48041123]My point is, some symbols can be so irrefutably tarnished by hate that they no longer can be used in a neutral setting, as they are now purely signs of hatred. Like the Swastika, use of the stars and bars in anything other than a historic setting (museums, movies) should be prosecuted, or at the very least, followed closely.[/QUOTE]
First Amendment of the United States Constitution states: [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/i]
To do what you suggest, prosecute people over a fucking flag, or just "follow them closely" is a COMPLETE affront to that right guaranteed to the citizens of the United States. The First Amendment allows people to have free expression, to hold what ever opinion they wish - even if it is unpopular or wrong. I disagree with racists, and I don't see the point in people flying Confederate Flags off of their trucks, but that's their god damn right to do so and I'll defend their right to do that to my dying breath.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48041078]It's eBay's right to decide what can and cannot be sold on their marketplace. They have loads of stuff banned. You can't sell items with racial slurs, you can't sell historical items from slavery like bills of sale and shackles and such, you can't sell any books written by Goebbels or Hitler or most major Nazi figures, you can't sell Nazi propaganda that says racist stuff on it, you can't sell Nazi uniforms with Nazi symbols, you can't sell any historical holocaust items or reproductions, you can't sell novelty items related to convicted violent felons... there's an enormous list of things eBay has banned from sale. The confederate flag isn't even that strange of an item for them to ban compared to some of the things they've banned - and the language is very flimsy and open to interpretation for a lot of them.
If you really want to collect bill of sale, shackles, nazi memorabilia, nazi army outfits, and nazi propaganda that says "kill the jews," don't look on eBay. It's not that strange - The Wii marketplace doesn't sell porn games. They're completely allowed (and should be expected to) restrict what can be sold using their marketplace.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it's their right and I'm also completely allowed to think it's retarded, you can't just handwave that away with "well it's their marketplace!". Especially since I disagree with that other stuff that's banned. Unless its illegal (hint none of that stuff is illegal in the US) they shouldn't ban it. Now it does get tricky with international shipping and what not, mainly Germany, but if you're only selling to places that aren't those locations it really shouldn't be an issue (and I see loads of times sellers not doing Intl. shipping).
so should ebay not ban the sale of food then
i dont think ive agreed with seed eater so much in my life before
or like at all actually, but here we are
[QUOTE=Buck.;48034197]What's next, ban gasmasks!?[/QUOTE]
Well Facepunch would die
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48041302']lol
Alright, so let's go over that argument, right?
Argument: The Confederacy was acting in opposition to an occupying power/foreign invader. It was a sovereign nation.
Reality: The Confederacy had no legal grounds to secede, and was not recognized as a sovereign state by any country. When the Southern states ratified the Constitution, they did so knowing that they would be dissolved as sovereign entities and would exist as merely administrative units within a republic. This was partly what the hubub about the 3/5 Clause and the Tenth Amendment was about, but they agreed to it nonetheless. Without the United States, there are no state- a local administrative body can not exist separate from its parent body. de facto sure, but on paper how can something that exists only as a subdivision exist separate from the whole? As such, states seceding actually represented rebellion and treason by the acting governments- the people- of those subdivisions. Your state was not sovereign because there was no legal ability for it to be so. It was an act of treason and rebellion, a revolt, and the Union had every legal and political right to suppress revolt within its territory. The South agreed to the conditions of federation, the revolt was a show of their true face: backstabbing hypocrites and liars.
"But what about reality? Your legal arguments don't count for shit if they really secede." And your arguments don't count for shit when the South was burning and crushed because the Union stopped your failed rebellion. The South fails because it had no right to secede, and its fails because it didn't have the power to sustain its treasonous rebellion. In order to be a sovereign nation, you first have to be sovereign, which since the Southern economy would't have have been able to maintain itself after the war anyway in any other way than an underdeveloped agrarian shithole on par with Mexico or Haiti, and as the Union clearly showed the South wasn't sovereign by...y'know...crushing it- then that's bunk. Foreign army? You mean the army of the US, which included the territory in which the South was revolting, which they had no legal principle or grounds to secede from? In order to have a foreign invader, you must first be separate from them. In order to be separate, you need to be sovereign, and in order to be sovereign, you need to maintain your claim to sovereignty, or by definition you are not sovereign.
Another load of nonsense from people whose nostalgia and revisionism doesn't match with the reality of the situation at the time.[/QUOTE]
And the greater US had no legal grounds to declare independence from England. That is not an argument. The CSA was factually a sovereign nation, regardless of your opinion of what it did.
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;48041402]so should ebay not ban the sale of food then[/QUOTE]
last I checked a confederate flag is not a perishable food item.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48041469]And the greater US had no legal grounds to declare independence from England. That is not an argument. The CSA was factually a sovereign nation, regardless of your opinion of what it did.[/QUOTE]
But it failed and was reabsorbed into the union before any other country had ever even recognized it as a sovereign nation.
Palestine has more nations recognize it as a sovereign nation than the CSA ever did in its entire history. No other country recognized it - it was a rebellion, not a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations depend on the recognition of other countries.
The USA succeeded in rebelling against the British and established itself as a country and gained recognition as a sovereign nation from France and from other countries. Yes, it was born from rebellion, but it gained the recognition of foreign powers that cemented it as a sovereign nation. The CSA never did.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48041469]And the greater US had no legal grounds to declare independence from England. That is not an argument. The CSA was factually a sovereign nation, regardless of your opinion of what it did.[/QUOTE]
And the US attempting to secede from Britain was seen as treasonous. But you guys won that one so it became a legitimate action much to our displeasure :~)
I'm not even saying the CSA was right in seceding, but it [I]was[/I] a sovereign territory with as valid a claim as the United States had 70 years before.
I personally wish the Civil War hadn't been necessary but I don't agree with lumping every Confederate into the same category for convenience, especially when that category tends to be "racist black lynching slave owners" which is simply far from the truth. I also cannot agree that the battle flag is anything more than a symbol of independence and Southern pride. Other Confederate flags, maybe, but not the battle flag. It's not a political flag, it isn't expressing those kinds of feelings. The feeling it represents is unity among Southerners.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48041302']lol
Alright, so let's go over that argument, right?
Argument: The Confederacy was acting in opposition to an occupying power/foreign invader. It was a sovereign nation.
Reality: The Confederacy had no legal grounds to secede, and was not recognized as a sovereign state by any country. When the Southern states ratified the Constitution, they did so knowing that they would be dissolved as sovereign entities and would exist as merely administrative units within a republic. This was partly what the hubub about the 3/5 Clause and the Tenth Amendment was about, but they agreed to it nonetheless. Without the United States, there are no state- a local administrative body can not exist separate from its parent body. de facto sure, but on paper how can something that exists only as a subdivision exist separate from the whole? As such, states seceding actually represented rebellion and treason by the acting governments- the people- of those subdivisions. Your state was not sovereign because there was no legal ability for it to be so. It was an act of treason and rebellion, a revolt, and the Union had every legal and political right to suppress revolt within its territory. The South agreed to the conditions of federation, the revolt was a show of their true face: backstabbing hypocrites and liars.
"But what about reality? Your legal arguments don't count for shit if they really secede." And your arguments don't count for shit when the South was burning and crushed because the Union stopped your failed rebellion. The South fails because it had no right to secede, and its fails because it didn't have the power to sustain its treasonous rebellion. In order to be a sovereign nation, you first have to be sovereign, which since the Southern economy would't have have been able to maintain itself after the war anyway in any other way than an underdeveloped agrarian shithole on par with Mexico or Haiti, and as the Union clearly showed the South wasn't sovereign by...y'know...crushing it- then that's bunk. Foreign army? You mean the army of the US, which included the territory in which the South was revolting, which they had no legal principle or grounds to secede from? In order to have a foreign invader, you must first be separate from them. In order to be separate, you need to be sovereign, and in order to be sovereign, you need to maintain your claim to sovereignty, or by definition you are not sovereign.
Another load of nonsense from people whose nostalgia and revisionism doesn't match with the reality of the situation at the time.[/QUOTE]
Of course the rebellion was illegal, EVERY major rebellion is illegal. By that logic you could argue that the US, Mexico, the Netherlands, and every other major country born from revolt are "backstabbing hypocrites and liars." Its a meaningless argument.
The reality of the matter was that the US had no authority, legal or otherwise, within the Confederacy for the four years it took to defeat. All that time, the Confederacy was the sole source of authority within its (admittedly shrinking) borders, which by definition means it was a sovereign power.
[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;48041545]Of course the rebellion was illegal, EVERY major rebellion is illegal. By that logic you could argue that the US, Mexico, the Netherlands, and every other major country born from revolt are "backstabbing hypocrites and liars." Its a meaningless argument.
The reality of the matter was that the US had no authority, legal or otherwise, within the Confederacy for the four years it took to defeat. All that time, the Confederacy was the sole source of authority within its (admittedly shrinking) borders, which by definition means it was a sovereign power.[/QUOTE]
A cording to international law to be sovereign you need to have a stable, defendable bored, be not reliant on any other sovereign state for existence, and be recognized by other sovereign states.* Guess how many of those things the South had going for it? The rebellion was illegal, it was treason. Sovereignty is a different argument that I'll also be happy to address.
*obviously this one is kinda dumb
"Defendable border" is dumb too because lots of nations today would be fucked if someone bigger than them decided to invade.
I can only sort of agree with self sufficiency but I would argue that the CSA met that until Union raiders started dismantling its economic base. Even lots of sovereign nations today don't meet that one anyway. Everyone relies on each other.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48041542]I'm not even saying the CSA was right in seceding, but it [I]was[/I] a sovereign territory with as valid a claim as the United States had 70 years before.
I personally wish the Civil War hadn't been necessary but I don't agree with lumping every Confederate into the same category for convenience, especially when that category tends to be "racist black lynching slave owners" which is simply far from the truth. I also cannot agree that the battle flag is anything more than a symbol of independence and Southern pride. Other Confederate flags, maybe, but not the battle flag. It's not a political flag, it isn't expressing those kinds of feelings. The feeling it represents is unity among Southerners.[/QUOTE]
southern pride? what pride? you didn't fuckin fight in it
there's little to be proud of in war, and there's even less to be proud of in sending 14 year olds to their death in order to perpetuate slavery to keep your economy afloat
respect the dead and mourn their ill fates, but don't fuckin glorify them
"i don't agree with why and how they fought, but southern heritage blood was spilled and i think that's pretty cool!!!"
also the difference is that 1. no other nation in the world recognized the csa as sovereign and 2. the csa got fuckin smashed
I'm not even going to humor you by taking that post seriously, stop putting words in my mouth and try again
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48041542]I'm not even saying the CSA was right in seceding, but it [I]was[/I] a sovereign territory with as valid a claim as the United States had 70 years before.
I personally wish the Civil War hadn't been necessary but I don't agree with lumping every Confederate into the same category for convenience, especially when that category tends to be "racist black lynching slave owners" which is simply far from the truth. I also cannot agree that the battle flag is anything more than a symbol of independence and Southern pride. Other Confederate flags, maybe, but not the battle flag. It's not a political flag, it isn't expressing those kinds of feelings. The feeling it represents is unity among Southerners.[/QUOTE]
It's not a flag to represent feelings of wanting slavery.
It just represents feelings of banding together and fighting together.
For slavery.
[QUOTE=Last or First;48041744]It's not a flag to represent feelings of wanting slavery.
It just represents feelings of banding together and fighting together.
For slavery.[/QUOTE]
Free black volunteers fighting under that flag weren't fighting for slavery. They were, as were most of the Confederate army, fighting for stability against an invading force that burned surrendered cities and massacred civilians and laughed it off with "war is hell!"
Once again the battle flag is not the national flag, it doesn't represent any politics, it's got nothing to do with slaveowners. It represents the soldiers who enlisted and fought and died to defend their homes, families and livelihoods.
[QUOTE=Last or First;48041744]It's not a flag to represent feelings of wanting slavery.
It just represents feelings of banding together and fighting together.
For slavery.[/QUOTE]
no they fought for "state's rights"
just don't ask them what supposed rights were actually being tread upon though
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48041764]Free black volunteers fighting under that flag weren't fighting for slavery. They were, as were most of the Confederate army, fighting for stability against an invading force that burned surrendered cities and massacred civilians and laughed it off with "war is hell!"[/quote]
Wasn't it already pointed out that these "black volunteers" didn't see much combat an/or were never given direct combat roles? It's also worth noting that they started assembling these "volunteers" only a month or two before the war ended, during a period where they were very much getting their shit kicked in, so it's easy to assume that they only started doing this as a desperate last-ditch effort. When you're getting your shit kicked in by a force as brutal as the Union's, you start to consider EVERY option, even if it means recruiting an oppressed minority that you may or may not have been whipping just months before.
[quote]Once again the battle flag is not the national flag, it doesn't represent any politics, it's got nothing to do with slaveowners. It represents the soldiers who enlisted and fought and died to defend their homes, families and livelihoods.[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't represent politics, or slave-owners. It just represents the poor sods those people hired to fight their war for them. They basically told them "Right, listen up, gentlemen! Them Union boys are comin' down to try and slap our shit 'cause we don't agree with their politics none, and they're gonna come down and lay everything to ruin until we surrender. But we don't plan on doin' that any time soon due to various political and economical interests all the wealthy folks have decided are important, so if you want to preserve your livelihood I'd suggest you grab that musket and follow me!" So even if it's "just a battle flag" to say it has no political attachments is ignorant.
As for the racist stigma it's garnered for itself, let's just say it was never racist in the beginning, that the Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with slavery at all, slavery isn't even a thing that's cared about.
Fast-forward to the 60s, and suddenly you have people waving this flag from that period while simultaneously doing their damndest to keep segregation in the south due to the common misconception that blacks aren't people and therefor aren't entitled to the same rights as white people. That's inarguably racist.
BAM, you just made a flag into a symbol of racism with a handful of bigot parades.
Same thing happened with the swastika. It was used in cultures all over the world, even Native American cultures, as a symbol for pretty much everything BUT killing off people and burning them in ovens, but thanks to a handful of bigot parades... You get the idea.
At any rate, if you insist on being THAT passionate about it, then your efforts might be better served bitching at eBay rather than here, 'cause I'm pretty sure none of use here make any decisions for eBay.
-fuckit-
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48043114]That's nice because NOBODY IS BANNING THAT! A company known as Ebay, independent from the United States Government or any other world government, decided they don't want confederate flags to be sold on their website because of the symbolism behind it. You can still buy it elsewhere, you can still put it on your lawn, on your truck, dye it in your hair, get a tattoo of it, you just can't sell it on Ebay because Ebay, not the United States Government, said they don't want it sold on their website. It's no different than a fancy restaurant saying you can't wear shorts and sneakers there, it's no different than a movie theatre kicking you out for being disruptive with your cell phone because it's a privately owned business, not public property.[/QUOTE]
Except we're arguing with people who said the Confederate flag should be banned/eradicated. eBay banning it was stupid and reactionary but that's all.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48043125]Except we're arguing with people who said the Confederate flag should be banned/eradicated. eBay banning it was stupid and reactionary but that's all.[/QUOTE]
People are arguing against the sentiment of waving it around in public, but I've only seen one post saying it should be outright banned.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.