South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[Mumbles]

No, they criticize Sharpton because he's a demagogue who is far more interested in pushing an agenda than he is in truth; and has no problem attacking and demonizing anyone who tries to insert verifiable facts into the debate. He jumps into whatever controversy he can to push himself and keep himself in the spotlight, and is only secondarily concerned with the actual issues involve.

Not like he's alone in that; Farrakhan could certainly give him a run for his money for sheer stridency.

Putting Sharpton in with black supremacist Louis Farrakhan is absurd. Sharpton's main agenda these days is reducing gun violence - National Action Network does a lot to help victims of police brutality, but they also work to reduce so-called "black-on-black crime", and Sharpton spoke out for the victims of the Newtown massacre as well.

 

[Foolmewunz]

There it is again. It is so common - and so stupid - to hear it said that someone "has an agenda" when they don't like a person's policies, politics, opinion, etc. OF COURSE, they have an agenda. Who doesn't have an "agenda"? I guarantee that the person calling, "Agenda! Agenda!" also has an agenda. When the hell did having an agenda become a bad thing?

Yeah, it's troublesome that the mere claim of having an agenda has become the attempted silencing technique. The original version of such a complaint was a "hidden agenda", and that's sometimes still used. e.g. if the miscreants are right and Obama really intends to turn the country commie or muslim (or commie-muslim)... the "hidden agenda", although factually wrong, is what they're claiming.

But claiming that LGBT groups have an "agenda" or that David Duke does, is sort of like accusing an elephant of having big ears.

Further, it's my opinion that in the case of a Sharpton, the "hidden" agenda is the accusers. Dismiss everything he says. After all, he has an agenda.

 

[Checkmite]

OF COURSE, they have an agenda. Who doesn't have an "agenda"? I guarantee that the person calling, "Agenda! Agenda!" also has an agenda.

I prefer Microsoft Outlook...

 

[SezMe]

See. SEE! Checckmite has an agenda. A pox upon you and your children to the fourth generation.

 

[Mumbles]

By the way, people complaining about "erasing history" should really be complaining about Texas schoolbooks instead.

 

[Foolmewunz]

By the way, people complaining about "erasing history" should really be complaining about Texas schoolbooks instead.

Well, when they're not rewriting it, they're erasing it.

Many of us fought the good fight earlier on with (I Wish I Was In) Dixie. It got the same turd-polishing as the current 'heritage not hate' does. I can remember in New Orleans, the songbook we sang it from "explaining" that it was written by a former slave pining away for her homeland and the good life she had on the plantation.

Uh, yeah, sure. It was written by a white minstrel composer and was sung in blackface, and meant to a parody of blacks, even then.

 

[Meadmaker]

By the way, people complaining about "erasing history" should really be complaining about Texas schoolbooks instead.

Surely there's plenty of room to complain about both.

I wish articles like the one you posted had a little more meat in them, though. The only actual citation of the offensive material is that in listing the causes of the war, they put slavery last. From that we are supposed to infer something. I don't doubt that the books do downplay the issue, but it would be nice in an article that makes the claim if they would provide some actual evidence.


ETA: In searching for more information, I ran across this article:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...r-schools-are-still-a-battlefield-6367641.php

It illustrates my concerns. It talks about a textbook "American Pageant", and how some say it doesn't emphasize slavery enough as the cause of the civil war. It mentions that the book has been in print for over half a century.

So, as it turns out, I must have had an early edition of the book, because that was my textbook for US history in high school. It mentioned slavery at every turn, from the Revolutionary War, through the Missouri compromise, the election of Lincoln, and the Civil War. I can't honestly recall whether it was the textbook or my teacher, or both, but I remember the general feeling that early American history was basically a constant struggle between the slave states and the free states, and slavery was the constant element, that finally erupted into the Civil War.

In other words, I see people complaining about that book, which does emphasize slavery, and I wonder what their problem is.

 

[Aepervius]

By a vote of 37 to 3, the S.C. Senate has voted to take down the flag.

http://news.yahoo.com/south-carolina-lawmakers-return-confederate-flag-debate-085829900.html

Steve S

That's not even a photo finish... Clearly the crushing majority of the senator recognized in which direction the wind was blowing, and it was not backward (or southward pick and chose).

 

[Meadmaker]

Interesting. Let's review:

​

You are arguing that it is possible to find some people for which the Confederate flag symbolizes something other than the racist Confederacy. That is the claim I'm asking you to support.

How is that a straw man?

It's a straw man because you are asserting that somehow the supporters of the flag deny the connection with racism. I certainly don't deny the connection of the flag with racism. I'm just saying that not every use of the flag implies racism.

So, can you rephrase your argument in such a way that it doesn't include the denial of racism?

That's a bit hard to parse. Let me illustrate with an example.

For me, that flag represents an army. Of course, that army was made up primarily of racists, and was fighting in a racist cause, but it was still an army. It was a bunch of men fighting and dying on a battlefield. The flag represents the men, not their cause. I do not deny that most of the men were racist, but while they happened to be shooting at each other near Manassas, Virginia, the Union and Confederate soldiers weren't really engaging in racism. They were just soldiers. So, I don't deny the existence of racism, but the flag doesn't represent that racism for me. It represents soldiers on a battlefield.

It also represents my specific ancestor on battlefields in the west, to me. Again, he was a racist, but he wasn't doing anything racist while he was fighting at Wilson's Creek. He was just hiding behind hay bales hoping not to get shot by enemy bullets.

So, that's what I am saying. I am saying that the flag has multiple meanings, including the racist confederacy. I wouldn't deny it, so any argument that asserts denial on my part is just a straw man.

"Heritage, not hate" has never been a denunciation of racism. It is a denial that racism exists, or ever existed.

While some might deny that racism exists or existed, that isn't what the saying means. It is an affirmative statement that racism is hate, and it suggests a denial that those people do not support the hate with which the flag has been associated.

What you (and a lot of people) are doing is saying that the flag can only mean one thing. It is inseparably connected to racial hatred, but that isn't the only thing it could possibly mean. My connection to it might be a game I played as a young man, or it might be stories told to me by my grandmother, that she heard from her grandmother.

So, if I chose to purchase a coaster with that flag for use when playing a game of "House Divided", I'm really not making a racist statement. Really. I'm not sure why those of you on the anti-coaster side thing that we need to get rid of those trinkets.

 

[Upchurch]

It's a straw man because you are asserting that somehow the supporters of the flag deny the connection with racism. I certainly don't deny the connection of the flag with racism. I'm just saying that not every use of the flag implies racism.

So, can you rephrase your argument in such a way that it doesn't include the denial of racism?

No, I can't because your claim, in your words, is that it means something "different". If it means different from the racist Confederacy, what is that something different?

So, that's what I am saying. I am saying that the flag has multiple meanings, including the racist confederacy. I wouldn't deny it, so any argument that asserts denial on my part is just a straw man.

That's not different. That's something in addition to and you seem to be agreeing that the Confederate flag has no meaning outside of its racist roots, correct?

While some might deny that racism exists or existed, that isn't what the saying means. It is an affirmative statement that racism is hate, and it suggests a denial that those people do not support the hate with which the flag has been associated.

I find this incredibly naive and optimistic, but again, I'll bite. Can you support this claim?

What you (and a lot of people) are doing is saying that the flag can only mean one thing. It is inseparably connected to racial hatred, but that isn't the only thing it could possibly mean.

Not quite. I'm saying that the flag can mean many things, but they are all rooted in the racial bigotry and slavery of the South. As has been pointed out, the swastika had meanings prior to its adoption by the Nazi party and there are those who use it in relation to those older meanings. Not so with the Confederate flag. All uses since the war has been rooted in the Confederacy.

So, if I chose to purchase a coaster with that flag for use when playing a game of "House Divided", I'm really not making a racist statement. Really.

You may not intend to be, but you most certainly are.

 

[The Greater Fool]

It's a straw man because you are asserting that somehow the supporters of the flag deny the connection with racism. I certainly don't deny the connection of the flag with racism. I'm just saying that not every use of the flag implies racism.

So, can you rephrase your argument in such a way that it doesn't include the denial of racism?

That's a bit hard to parse. Let me illustrate with an example.

For me, that flag represents an army. Of course, that army was made up primarily of racists, and was fighting in a racist cause, but it was still an army. It was a bunch of men fighting and dying on a battlefield. The flag represents the men, not their cause. I do not deny that most of the men were racist, but while they happened to be shooting at each other near Manassas, Virginia, the Union and Confederate soldiers weren't really engaging in racism. They were just soldiers. So, I don't deny the existence of racism, but the flag doesn't represent that racism for me. It represents soldiers on a battlefield.

It also represents my specific ancestor on battlefields in the west, to me. Again, he was a racist, but he wasn't doing anything racist while he was fighting at Wilson's Creek. He was just hiding behind hay bales hoping not to get shot by enemy bullets.

So, that's what I am saying. I am saying that the flag has multiple meanings, including the racist confederacy. I wouldn't deny it, so any argument that asserts denial on my part is just a straw man.



While some might deny that racism exists or existed, that isn't what the saying means. It is an affirmative statement that racism is hate, and it suggests a denial that those people do not support the hate with which the flag has been associated.

What you (and a lot of people) are doing is saying that the flag can only mean one thing. It is inseparably connected to racial hatred, but that isn't the only thing it could possibly mean. My connection to it might be a game I played as a young man, or it might be stories told to me by my grandmother, that she heard from her grandmother.

So, if I chose to purchase a coaster with that flag for use when playing a game of "House Divided", I'm really not making a racist statement. Really. I'm not sure why those of you on the anti-coaster side thing that we need to get rid of those trinkets.

OK.

Do you feel the same about the Swastika, since the exact same arguments apply?

Folks can display the Swastika without shame, no connection to Nazi Germany and Hitler, because their relatives that fought and died in WWII under that flag. They may have even believed in Nazi ideology, but there is no connection between the flag and the ideology? After all, it is understood that many, many German soldiers were not even in the Nazi party, but even if they were and believed the ideology entirely, those that fought and died were just fighting under that flag, which we should respect and remember, by flying a Swastika now? For Family?

Really?

 

[DavidJames]

Who cares what others think - I'll fly a flag depicting Meadmakers mother with a pick ax in her head and a squid up her butt, because to me it represents happy happy joy joy.

That's just the kind of skeptic I am.

 

[dudalb]

No, they criticize Sharpton because he's a demagogue who is far more interested in pushing an agenda than he is in truth; and has no problem attacking and demonizing anyone who tries to insert verifiable facts into the debate. He jumps into whatever controversy he can to push himself and keep himself in the spotlight, and is only secondarily concerned with the actual issues involve.

Not like he's alone in that; Farrakhan could certainly give him a run for his money for sheer stridency.

But being a liar and a demogogue is fine if your agenda is politically correct....that what the defenders of Sharpton comes down too.Not that anything like a demogogic ,self seeking liar could possibly exist on the left,however.
It's a case of king size political blinders.

 

[dudalb]

By the way, people complaining about "erasing history" should really be complaining about Texas schoolbooks instead.

Well,in Texas teaching history is often something just given to football coaches so they can be employed in the off season.

Texas public education has always been something of a disgrace.

But agreed this is getting absolutely Orwellian . It's open contempt for most scholarship is scary.

 

[dudalb]

Looks as if the Rebel Rag is going down in SOuth Carolina...I got a feeling the maneuvering in the Carolina House is just the usual "which reps can afford to vote yes without endangering their relection" maneuvering.

 

[lobosrul]

Well,in Texas teaching history is often something just given to football coaches so they can be employed in the off season.

Texas public education has always been something of a disgrace.

But agreed this is getting absolutely Orwellian . It's open contempt for most scholarship is scary.

I guess maybe when I was a middle school/ high school student in Texas was during some sort of liberal renaissance period. It was around when Anne Richards was governor. Because I remember several times being angry at how liberal the teacher was (grew up in a right wing household, and my political views have changed). I can only think of one instance where a teacher expressed really right wing views: "AIDS is gods wrath for the gays" from a science teacher. But, several political discussions where it was clear the teacher was at least moderately left. Pro-choice, ranting about the NRA, the founding fathers really meant guns were for a state run militia, and how terrible the atomic bombing of japan was come to mind. Also, one of the best math teachers I ever had was also the basketball coach.

 

[Meadmaker]

OK.

Do you feel the same about the Swastika, since the exact same arguments apply?

Folks can display the Swastika without shame, no connection to Nazi Germany and Hitler, because their relatives that fought and died in WWII under that flag. They may have even believed in Nazi ideology, but there is no connection between the flag and the ideology? After all, it is understood that many, many German soldiers were not even in the Nazi party, but even if they were and believed the ideology entirely, those that fought and died were just fighting under that flag, which we should respect and remember, by flying a Swastika now? For Family?

Really?

Well, context is everything, isn't it? If you run a Nazi flag up the flag pole in your yard, regardless of what you are thinking, the neighbors might look askance. Likewise with a rebel flag. Of course, some of the neighbors might approve, because they might be racists and think that you are racist, whether or not you are. So, use either flag with caution.*

But if your father or grandfather fought in the German army in WW II, I don't think you need to be ashamed, and if somewhere in your family memorabilia there were Nazi logos associated with his military service, I don't think you need to hide them away or burn them. Your reverence for your relatives need not be completely destroyed just because you disagree with the ideology of the army they fought under. I like the scene from Henry V:

Henry: "Methinks I could not die anywhere so contented as in the King's company, his cause being just and his quarrel honorable."

Williams: "That's more than we know."

Bates: "Ay, or more than we should seek after. For we know enough if we know we are the King's subjects. If his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us."

Williams: "But if the cause be not good, the King himself hath a heavy reckoning to make,

Fighting for the confederacy, or the Nazis, or the USA in a just or unjust war, they were soldiers. They don't bear the burden of the sins of the politicians who led them to war.


I also don't put much stock in the magic power of symbols. They don't taint everything they touch. I used the example of the coasters because I read the article about banning them at Vicksburg. However, my hypothetical example of me using such coasters was based on a real example. Some friends of mine used to gather to play a WWII armor miniatures game. This friend had a collection of military hats. I never knew where he got them, but they included Russian, and American, and Nazi hats. We wore the hat of the team we were playing. My conscience is clear. I don't think I was supporting the holocaust.

_________________________
*I have a rainbow in my front yard right now. I wonder what the neighbors think.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's not different. That's something in addition to and you seem to be agreeing that the Confederate flag has no meaning outside of its racist roots, correct?

Fair enough, sort of. Symbols have meaning, and they can have multiple meanings, and a user of the symbol will be saddled with all of the meanings that the viewer perceives. So I will say that in addition to its association with racism, it is also associated with other things.

You may not intend to be, but you most certainly are.

This is the attitude that I find sanctimonious. It's like you are trying to wipe out an evil symbol. Somehow, a coaster used when playing a wargame becomes a racist symbol because.......well you fill in the blank. I don't want to get it wrong, and I certainly can't come up with any words that make sense in order to paraphrase your position.

 

[Meadmaker]

Who cares what others think - I'll fly a flag depicting Meadmakers mother with a pick ax in her head and a squid up her butt,

Charming.

 

[wareyin]

This is the attitude that I find sanctimonious. It's like you are trying to wipe out an evil symbol. Somehow, a coaster used when playing a wargame becomes a racist symbol because.......well you fill in the blank. I don't want to get it wrong, and I certainly can't come up with any words that make sense in order to paraphrase your position.

Somehow, a coaster used when playing a wargame becomes a racist symbol because...it uses the symbol invented by racists, for racists to use while fighting for a racist cause, and has been ever after used by racists to symbolize their commitment to racist attitudes, while never actually being used for any purpose other than racism. Really, how is this not understood?