[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593656]It's not that simple though, nothing is black and white, especially when dealing with this kind of thing.[/QUOTE]
look either the flag means something or it doesn't. you can't make a statement like "the rebel flag always represented freedom and pride, it was never meant to be a symbol of racism" then say nothing is black and white.
if you truly believe nothing was black and white you'd cede that while it stands for freedom and pride it also stood for the right of slavery or else you're just not willing to drink your own medicine.
[QUOTE=OvB;33593660]The bigotry and hatred towards blacks was on both sides. You could argue that both sides saw blacks as inferior. While the north fought for the end of slavery, they were still racist in many respects. Slavery to southerners was taught through generations of Religious indoctrination. Many didn't see it as wrong. (Again, they saw it as a God given right) Racism and bigotry was still strong in the North, too. You cannot deny that.[/QUOTE]
However, you can't move to a more racially tolerant society when racial slavery is practiced.
[QUOTE=OvB;33593660]The bigotry and hatred towards blacks was on both sides. You could argue that both sides saw blacks as inferior. While the north fought for the end of slavery, they were still racist in many respects. Slavery to southerners was taught through generations of Religious indoctrination. Many didn't see it as wrong. (Again, they saw it as a God given right) Racism and bigotry was still strong in the North, too. You cannot deny that.[/QUOTE]
yes the north were racist too, but their government wasn't FOUNDED on the belief that blacks are inferior to whites and that slavery is an acceptable state for them
[QUOTE=OvB;33593660] Racism and bigotry was still strong in the North, too. You cannot deny that.[/QUOTE]
no-one is denying that. the conversation simply isn't about the north, it's about the flag the symbol of the confederacy. of course many didn't see it as wrong, no-one does evil shit on that scale while knowing it's wrong.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593656]It's not that simple though, nothing is black and white, especially when dealing with this kind of thing.[/QUOTE]
Heh. Black and white. xD
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593675]look either the flag means something or it doesn't. you can't make a statement like "the rebel flag always represented freedom and pride, it was never meant to be a symbol of racism" then say nothing is black and white.
if you truly believe nothing was black and white you'd cede that while it stands for freedom and pride it also stood for the right of slavery or else you're just not willing to drink your own medicine.[/QUOTE]
It stood for a lot of things but racism wasn't one of them.
[QUOTE=OvB;33593660]The bigotry and hatred towards blacks was on both sides. You could argue that both sides saw blacks as inferior. While the north fought for the end of slavery, they were still racist in many respects. Slavery to southerners was taught through generations of Religious indoctrination. Many didn't see it as wrong. (Again, they saw it as a God given right) Racism and bigotry was still strong in the North, too. You cannot deny that.[/QUOTE]
regardless of how racist you say the north might have been,
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/200px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png[/img]
is not a symbol of racism.
contrast with:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg/200px-Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Master X;33593694]Heh. Black and white. xD[/QUOTE]
I caught it right after I posted it, hoped nobody else would
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593695]It stood for a lot of things but racism wasn't one of them.[/QUOTE]
WHAT DO YOU MEAN??? did you not read the part where thisispain quoted the president of the confederacy saying that the black man being inferior to the white man and them being slaves being their natural state is the cornerstone of the confederate government?????
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593685]However, you can't move to a more racially tolerant society when racial slavery is practiced.[/QUOTE]
Very true. All I'm arguing is that Southern people were not monsters fueled by hatred. They thought blacks were inferior, yeah, but most didn't hate their slaves.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593695]It stood for a lot of things but racism wasn't one of them.[/QUOTE]
But it was. It represented a country that was founded because they didn't want to give up slavery. A country that was founded on the idea that whites were inherently superior to blacks.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593699]I caught it right after I posted it, hoped nobody else would[/QUOTE]
comedy gold mate, tell your mother you were sharp as a rock today
[QUOTE=Master X;33593694]Heh. Black and white. xD[/QUOTE]
why don't you go educate yourself before asking whether Abraham Lincoln owned slaves or not instead of posting really wrong historical crap
[editline]5th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593695]It stood for a lot of things but racism wasn't one of them.[/QUOTE]
i didn't say racism, i said slavery.
[QUOTE=OvB;33593705]Very true. All I'm arguing is that Southern people were not monsters fueled by hatred. They thought blacks were inferior, yeah, but most didn't hate their slaves.[/QUOTE]
Well, no. House slaves tended to be treated as members of the family.
Anyways, most people in the south weren't even slaveholders. The people that did are the 1800s equivalent to the "1%" we have now.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593597]yes there is, the thirteen colonies were the first to exercise it.[/QUOTE]
So, because of this, you feel that the founding fathers spent to much time and effort creating a nation that was to be temporary, susceptible to breakup at any time? We revolted against a monarchy, the South revolted because they didn't like the outcome of a [B]fair election[/B].
[QUOTE=OvB;33593705]most didn't hate their slaves.[/QUOTE]
how do you even know that? toleration is very different from not hating.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;33593696]regardless of how racist you say the north might have been,
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/200px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png[/img]
is not a symbol of racism.
contrast with:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg/200px-Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg.png[/img][/QUOTE]
reminds me of something else
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ouygr.jpg[/img]
it means peace
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=CG-105;33593728]So, because of this, you feel that the founding fathers spent to much time and effort creating a nation that was to be temporary, susceptible to breakup at any time? We revolted against a monarchy, the South revolted because they didn't like the outcome of a [B]fair election[/B].[/QUOTE]
Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical:
Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.
The London press made this argument:
The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.
The South fought the war for essentially the same reason that the American colonies fought the Revolutionary War. The central grievance of the American colonies in the 18th century was the taxes imposed on them by Britain. Colonists particularly objected to the Stamp Act, which required them to purchase an official British stamp and place it on all documents in order for them to be valid. The colonists also objected to the import tariff that Britain placed on sugar and other goods (the Sugar Act).
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html[/url]
also yes, because the declaration of independence said that was good.
[QUOTE=Master X;33593633]
Similarly Japan attacked the US first in WWII, but it [i]was[/i] an attack provoked by US.[/QUOTE]
Because cutting off Japan's oil supply on the grounds that they were raping the fucking shit out of China (literally) was just us willfully provoking them into attacking. Yup. Nope.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593737]reminds me of something else
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ouygr.jpg[/img]
it means peace[/QUOTE]
there is a difference between two symbols that mean two totally different things in two different cultures, and two flags in which one of the flags has the original context and history wiped out and replaced with the notion of "freedom and pride".
i mean why use the confederate flag in the first place? the US flag also supposedly stands for freedom and pride.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593688]yes the north were racist too, but their government wasn't FOUNDED on the belief that blacks are inferior to whites and that slavery is an acceptable state for them[/QUOTE]
Hmmmmm... I'm not sure that it wasn't founded strictly on that. Slavery was very important to the South; I will not deny, but their "constitution" or "declaration of independence" or whatever they wrote up surely had more to it than that. I'm not sure all of those states would have succeeded over just slavery, but perhaps they would have. I mean, to ban slavery in the South would be to ban their economy, and to essentially force the people into poverty. Again, I'm not trying to argue for slavery. I'm just trying to rationalize as they may have.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593752]there is a difference between two symbols that mean two totally different things in two different cultures, and two flags in which one of the flags has the original context and history wiped out and replaced with the notion of "freedom and pride".
i mean why use the confederate flag in the first place? the US flag also supposedly stands for freedom and pride.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about the bastardization of the two symbols, stop with the damn straw man arguments and actually attack my points instead of the points you want to hear
[QUOTE=CG-105;33593751]Because cutting off Japan's oil supply on the grounds that they were raping the fucking shit out of China (literally) was just us willfully provoking them into attacking. Yup. Nope.[/QUOTE]
It was, though. FDR wanted to intervene on the side of the Allies, but the American people weren't really willing to do so. Most of the actions the US took as far as dealing with the Japanese were to hopefully provoke them into declaring war.
We embargo'ed Japan because they were raping China. However, the goal wasn't just to embargo Japan, it was to provoke Japan into war so that we could justify a war against the Axis.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
but I digress...
[QUOTE=Master X;33593753]Hmmmmm... I'm not sure that it wasn't founded strictly on that. Slavery was very important to the South; I will not deny, but their "constitution" or "declaration of independence" or whatever they wrote up surely had more to it than that. I'm not sure all of those states would have succeeded over just slavery, but perhaps they would have. I mean, to ban slavery in the South would be to ban their economy, and to essentially force the people into poverty. Again, I'm not trying to argue for slavery. I'm just trying to rationalize as they may have.[/QUOTE]
refer to that quote by the president of the confederacy. and i highly doubt it would have hurt their economy. if anything it would have helped their economy, you're all pointing out how only few in the south actually owned slaves, so the abolishment of slavery would mean more jobs for non-slaves and only the already super wealthy would have been adversely affected.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593737]reminds me of something else
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ouygr.jpg[/img]
it means peace[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/y6PJN.jpg[/img]
replace "paranoia" with "bad internet posts" and there you go
but you're right, anyone using a nazi-looking swastika in modern-day times shouldn't, because of the nasty connotations it carries
[QUOTE=mrcsb;33593779]but you're right, anyone using a nazi-looking swastika in modern-day times shouldn't, because of the nasty connotations it carries[/QUOTE]
strawman strawman strawman
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593770]I'm talking about the bastardization of the two symbols, stop with the damn straw man arguments and actually attack my points instead of the points you want to hear[/QUOTE]
well if the bastardization was historically inaccurate i'd see your point like with the swaztika meaning something different historically in other cultures. i don't see that in the confederate flag because it seems to me it still means the same thing it did when the confederacy was founded: "we quit your nation because we want to keep slaves".
if anything it's been bastardized to mean something about southern pride and freedom while gently and quietly sniping out the bad parts.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593770]I'm talking about the bastardization of the two symbols, stop with the damn straw man arguments and actually attack my points instead of the points you want to hear[/QUOTE]
how is it even similar? the swastika was a symbol that had existed for thousands of years before used by the nazi party, the confederate battle flag was a symbol created by the confederacy. if anything it is you trying to claim it's a symbol of freedom and pride which is the bastardization.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593770]I'm talking about the bastardization of the two symbols, stop with the damn straw man arguments and actually attack my points instead of the points you want to hear[/QUOTE]
Do you even know what a symbol is? The only relevance to a symbol is the emotional and intellectual meaning it gives to the observer. Symbols change with usage over time. The Confederate flag invokes the image of racism and slavery to most observers, so it is a symbol of racism and slavery.
Maybe it was bastardized, maybe it wasn't. It doesn't really matter because the meaning of the symbol is now something negative.
[QUOTE=CG-105;33593751]Because cutting off Japan's oil supply on the grounds that they were raping the fucking shit out of China (literally) was just us willfully provoking them into attacking. Yup. Nope.[/QUOTE]
I'm not at all arguing that it was unethical for us to cut off their fuel supply. Bravo to us, honestly. WWII was one of the few wars where I like how America handled itself. Although to be honest I think we should have gotten involved sooner (unfortunately that's not what the American people wanted at the time).
Anywho, at that point they kind of needed fuel. The war was on, to not have fuel would be to lose & die. You have to look at it from their view too.
Also, I think you mean figuratively. :D
God I'm off-topic. Sorry.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593790]strawman strawman strawman[/QUOTE]
maybe i misunderstood. are you saying that people [i]should[/i] use nazi-looking swastikas in the current day and ignore the historical context and hurtful racial issues it brings back?
clear it up for me, please, because your arguments are all over the place. besides the fact that you've derailed the entire thread, you haven't even managed to derail it in a single direction
p.s. the lew rockwell link was comedy gold. i didn't think people still took that libertarian shill site seriously
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.