South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[Foolmewunz]

Multiracial Group Of Teachers And Activists Take Down South Carolina Confederate Flag



One day later at the SC Statehouse.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2284555909cce1007f.png[/qimg]

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to insinuate that the latter pic was a reaction to the Youtube. Just to clarify.... the pro-flag demonstration was announced before the activists' civil disobedience. They even referenced it in talking about the action.

 

[catsmate]

Rest assured, the epidemic display of yankee colonial arrogance in this thread isn't lost on the droves of lurkers.

No I think any lurkers can clearly see your flawed arguments.

Despite their supporters heroic spinmeister efforts, the fact remains the north provoked war (for the reasons previously outlined) by "invading" via Fort Moultrie.

I see to recall that incident rather differently.

Depends on how long you amortize the expenditure over. And of course that was after the importation of slaves had been outlawed thus reducing the supply of new slaves.

And breeding new slaves was quite profitable.

 

[catsmate]

This link (and similar) is all over the interwebs, and I'm kind of sick of it. What do you guys make of it? Full of some crap, isn't it?

"History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispell some of these rampant inaccuracies."

http://www.rulen.com/myths/

Well it starts with the fake Lincoln quote and goes on in a similar vein.

 

[Upchurch]

*smirk*

Beware the NSFW Languge

 

[luchog]

Sadly, the article misses the real fart in the soup - slavery itself. The idea of it, the support of it, the allowing it. These statistics are equivalent to supporting swastikas because, hey, hardly any Nazis actually killed Jews, on a percentage basis.

It also supports the contention that Secession was not a populist movement as it is in some modern states (and Quebec in Canada), but was enacted to support a small moneyed elite, much like pro-corporate legislation is today. The "1%" of their day. Adoption of the symbol by lower-class and working-class southerners completely ignores the fact that slavery had a profoundly negative impact on their equivalent population at the time, keeping labour costs depressed, and competition with slave-owners difficult. It was as much a symbol of oligarchical elitism as it was of white supremacism.

 

[marplots]

*smirk*

Beware the NSFW Languge

The dog had the best comments.

 

[RandFan]

It also supports the contention that Secession was not a populist movement as it is in some modern states (and Quebec in Canada), but was enacted to support a small moneyed elite, much like pro-corporate legislation is today. The "1%" of their day. Adoption of the symbol by lower-class and working-class southerners completely ignores the fact that slavery had a profoundly negative impact on their equivalent population at the time, keeping labour costs depressed, and competition with slave-owners difficult. It was as much a symbol of oligarchical elitism as it was of white supremacism.

I had never thought of that. Thank you.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Not sure what flag you are referring to here, given that the American flag didn't exist in 1776. At that time there was no national U.S. flag, just the flags of the 13 Colonies.




Ah.

The U.S. flag though stands for more than a battle flag of a failed racist regime. Let us know if you want an actual discussion, or if you just want to pretend to be hurt.

Hmm, you are either uninformed or you're lying. Certainly we had a flag in 1776 that represented the United States as a Country.
I also remember reading a document that states "We the People of the United States" during this same period. I don't seem to recall anything stating "We the People of the 13 Colonies".



We are discussing the removal of a particular flag for particular reasons that would seem to justify it's removal by using moral objections. Those same reasons used for removal of the confederate battle flag apply to the flag of the United States as well. So if you remove one, the other may be removed for the same exact reasons. Point being don't throw away freedom of speech even if that speech is unpopular. Tolerance is what it's about, not political correctness and vote seeking.
Chris B.

 

[Polaris]

I had never thought of that. Thank you.

There's a passage in Frederick Douglass' My Bondage and My Freedom where he describes how pitiable he (and IIRC the other slaves) found the white lower classes. I can only find the book in PDF form so this abridged passage is the best I can come up with right now:

The slaveholders...by encouraging the enmity of the poor laboring white man against the Blacks, succeeded in making the white man almost as much a slave as the Black slave himself. The difference between the white slave and the Black slave was this: the latter belonged to one slaveholder, and the former belonged to the slaveholders collectively...Both were plundered, and by the same plunderers...The slaveholders blinded them to this competition by keeping alive their prejudice.

http://socialistworker.org/2013/02/20/mighty-voice-freedom

 

[DavidJames]

We are discussing the removal of a particular flag for particular reasons that would seem to justify it's removal by using moral objections. Those same reasons used for removal of the confederate battle flag apply to the flag of the United States as well. So if you remove one, the other may be removed for the same exact reasons. Point being don't throw away freedom of speech even if that speech is unpopular. Tolerance is what it's about, not political correctness and vote seeking.
Chris B.

Just so I'm clear, you consider the confederate flag and the U.S. as equal? Could we also include, say, the flag of sports team equal as well? Because we call them all flags, we should consider them all equal and apply the same logic to each?

 

[Polaris]

Just so I'm clear, you consider the confederate flag and the U.S. as equal? Could we also include, say, the flag of sports team equal as well? Because we call them all flags, we should consider them all equal and apply the same logic to each?

He's repeating the "But...but...buts" that have been tossed around social media all weekend. Those who wrote them thought them through as little as those who "like" them on Facebook.

 

[marplots]

We are discussing the removal of a particular flag for particular reasons that would seem to justify it's removal by using moral objections. Those same reasons used for removal of the confederate battle flag apply to the flag of the United States as well. So if you remove one, the other may be removed for the same exact reasons. Point being don't throw away freedom of speech even if that speech is unpopular. Tolerance is what it's about, not political correctness and vote seeking.
Chris B.

Have you considered that people may not be feigning moral outrage in service to a political agenda, but actually do feel the flag is irredeemably blemished? Perhaps those embarrassed by the stained cloth aren't faking at all.

 

[luchog]

Have you considered that people may not be feigning moral outrage in service to a political agenda, but actually do feel the flag is irredeemably blemished? Perhaps those embarrassed by the stained cloth aren't faking at all.

Accusation of "feigned outrage" (aka 'faux-outrage") is the new conservative dogwhistle. It's nothing more than a cheap tactic used to dismiss and demonize opponents; and absolve themselves from the necessity of addressing serious concerns and valid arguments. It's cheap rhetoric intended to evade issues, rather than provide a valid counter-argument.

Most commonly used in relation to "Social Justice Warriors" (whose irrationality, admittedly, make them easy targets); its use has seen influx into more mainstream debates on feminism, race, and GLBT rights by those who seek to deny or minimize the degree to which problems with these subjects still persist.

 

[lobosrul]

We are discussing the removal of a particular flag for particular reasons that would seem to justify it's removal by using moral objections. Those same reasons used for removal of the confederate battle flag apply to the flag of the United States as well. So if you remove one, the other may be removed for the same exact reasons. Point being don't throw away freedom of speech even if that speech is unpopular. Tolerance is what it's about, not political correctness and vote seeking.
Chris B.

And if Congress decided that its time we adopt a new flag, and all federal properties must fly this new flag instead of the Stars and Stripes, then I would (continue to) think we have a bunch of morons representing us on capitol hill. But, assuming private citizens can still fly the old flag, I would not rant about how our freedom of speech had been thrown away, you know, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN.

 

[Mumbles]

We are discussing the removal of a particular flag for particular reasons that would seem to justify it's removal by using moral objections. Those same reasons used for removal of the confederate battle flag apply to the flag of the United States as well. So if you remove one, the other may be removed for the same exact reasons. Point being don't throw away freedom of speech even if that speech is unpopular. Tolerance is what it's about, not political correctness and vote seeking.

Why would I tolerate state endorsement of someone else's senseless intolerance?

This is an argument I'd expect from Sean Hannity. No, you cannot make the same argument about the US flag. It's the Official US Flag. There's always some knucklehead wanting to take that one down, it's not happening. The Confederate Battle Flag represents a militia that doesn't even exist anymore. It's around because a bunch of white people were all bent out of shape that black people could attend their schools.

 

[Ladewig]

Hmm, you are either uninformed or you're lying. Certainly we had a flag in 1776 that represented the United States as a Country.
I also remember reading a document that states "We the People of the United States" during this same period. I don't seem to recall anything stating "We the People of the 13 Colonies".



We are discussing the removal of a particular flag for particular reasons that would seem to justify it's removal by using moral objections. Those same reasons used for removal of the confederate battle flag apply to the flag of the United States as well. So if you remove one, the other may be removed for the same exact reasons. Point being don't throw away freedom of speech even if that speech is unpopular. Tolerance is what it's about, not political correctness and vote seeking.
Chris B.

[snicker]

 

[uk_dave]

4.) How can I stare at a woman's breasts without her thinking I'm a pervert?

Simple, while doing so do not drool or make involuntary guttural sounds and definitely stop rubbing the palms of your hands up and down the tops of your legs.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Just so I'm clear, you consider the confederate flag and the U.S. as equal? Could we also include, say, the flag of sports team equal as well? Because we call them all flags, we should consider them all equal and apply the same logic to each?

If you can remove one you can remove the other.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Have you considered that people may not be feigning moral outrage in service to a political agenda, but actually do feel the flag is irredeemably blemished? Perhaps those embarrassed by the stained cloth aren't faking at all.

And what if those same people feel the flag of the US is also irredeemably blemished? Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

And if Congress decided that its time we adopt a new flag, and all federal properties must fly this new flag instead of the Stars and Stripes, then I would (continue to) think we have a bunch of morons representing us on capitol hill. But, assuming private citizens can still fly the old flag, I would not rant about how our freedom of speech had been thrown away, you know, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN.

If the flag is removed from a public display at a monument, quite certainly freedom of speech has been violated. Who owns the public monument? Hint, we do. Chris B.