South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[Giordano]

Actually, it means miserly. Stingy.

It's interesting that you would use that example, because I was thinking of it, too. Of course, I came to exactly the opposite conclusion. Niggardly is a perfectly appropriate word, with no racial connotations whatsoever, and should be used when it is appropriate. When people are offended, and someone points out its true meaning, the offended people should admit their mistake.

Language is somewhat more malleable than history, but words still have meanings. You can't just decide a word means something and expect everyone to go along with it.

But...that's a digression. I want to go back to your main point about the Confederate flag, and ask you how to apply it in a specific case, that I have already brought up.

Ocala, Florida has a flag display with the flags of France, The United Kingdom, Spain, The Confederate States of America, and the United States of America. Should they remove one of those flags? Why or why not?

Anyone else could also weigh in on this if they choose. I have already provided my answer.

(Sorry, Upchurch, I will not provide evidence that the flags actually exist, or that Spain actually controlled the land where now sits the city of Ocala.)

Sorry:you are correct about the definition; I told you that I avoid using it. As I mentioned, but why insist on using it at all if you know it will offend people? Yes, it may originally been derived from a different word and not a slur. But so was the n word that is a racial slur- it was originally derived from a word referring to a color. It became a slur because it was used as one. Why try to rehabilitate it when it is such damaged goods? There are a lot of non-offensive words that can be used instead. Same with the Confederate flag.

It terms of the Florida flay display, I can simply weigh in by asking which of the ones you list are flags of countries that exist today, and which is not? Which specially was created to symbolize the fight for slavery and reused to symbolize the fight for segregation? And perhaps you truly believe that the whole purpose was purely historical, and was be no means a political statement seeking to fly a confederate symbol? My view? Pull my other leg! Would it be well received if we flew the Nazi flag over parts of France, or the Japanese flag over China? You know, just for historical reasons.

 

[Checkmite]

Sorry:you are correct about the definition; I told you that I avoid using it. As I mentioned, but why insist on using it at all if you know it will offend people?

Especially when it can be defined as Meadmaker demonstrated by other single, and less-archaic, words like "miserly" and "stingy" that can be used instead without causing confusion.

 

[Darat]

Quick history question - were the two sides conscript or volunteer armies?

 

[Upchurch]

Is it worth asking you to support this claim about how the side that got rid of slavery was rotten to the core?

(Sorry, Upchurch, I will not provide evidence that the flags actually exist, or that Spain actually controlled the land where now sits the city of Ocala.)

Translation:

"Sorry, Upchurch, it is not worth asking me to apply critical thinking to this topic. I plan to stick to my unsupported assumptions (you know, faith) and counter-factual straw man arguments."​

Of course, no one asked for evidence of flags or the previous exploits of Spain. I'm asking you to support the central assumption of your main thesis in this thread. Namely, that the anti-slavery North was morally equivalent to the pro-slavery South. You have taken this as a given despite the fact that many posters here have challenged you about your assumption. I may be mistaken, but I don't recall anyone actually agreeing with you on this point.

So, if you are not willing to support or even defend your premise in a way consistent with either evidence or reason, the question becomes: what are you trying to accomplish? Defend the confederacy for the sole reason that you have a family connection to them rather than because of any intrinsic merit they might have?

 

[paulhutch]

Quick history question - were the two sides conscript or volunteer armies?

They both started as volunteer armies but as the war progressed they both enacted a draft making them a mixture of volunteers and conscripts.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Civil_War

 

[Meadmaker]

You've raised the Ocala situation many times. Let's assume, just for the sake of my post, that the use of the confederate flag in that particular circumstance is a valid exhibition of its historical context for that city.

Now: So what? Are you arguing that that situation generalizes to all of the South? To all displays of that flag? That that one historical circumstance then makes the claim of its historical interpretation universal?

Fascinating question.

The direct answer is "no".

The reason it is fascinating to me, though, is that it is directly related to my main issue with this whole Confederate flag frenzy. An awful lot of people feel that since the Confederate flag has been displayed as part of racist demonstrations, that that interpretation is universal, i.e. that every display of a Confederate flag is racist.

I would say that it is possible to display that flag in such a way that no racism is expressed or implied. The display at Ocala is an obvious example.


(Note to Upchurch: The previous two sentences are the actual central assumption that underlies my main thesis. Your most recent post is simply wrong- again.)

I wonder if "Six Flags Over Texas" has come under pressure to change its theme park displays. Off to google news.....

ETA: Nothing really significant at the theme park. A couple of stories mentioned the possibility that people might get upset, but no one really has.

 

[Upchurch]

I would say that it is possible to display that flag in such a way that no racism is expressed or implied. The display at Ocala is an obvious example.


(Note to Upchurch: The previous two sentences are the actual central assumption that underlies my main thesis. Your most recent post is simply wrong- again.)

The flag in Ocala still represents the racist confederacy and is actually tangential to the point you were originally trying to make about individuals flying the Confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage, not hate". Shifting goal posts and whatnot.

However, that is not the underlying assumption. The underlying assumption of your argument is that one can use a symbol entirely divorced from it's historical, and current, context. It's clear that you understand that is an underlying assumption, even if you refuse to acknowledge it, because you've been trying to justify it by rewriting history. Specifically, your thesis of the Confederate flag can represent "heritage, not hate" seems to rest on your contention that the pre-Civil War North was morally equivalent, in terms of slavery, to the pre-Civil War South.

So, here is the root question of critical thinking: Why do you think that?

Are you intellectually honest enough to answer?

 

[Meadmaker]

The flag in Ocala still represents the racist confederacy and is actually tangential to the point you were originally trying to make about individuals flying the Confederate flag as a symbol of "heritage, not hate". Shifting goal posts and whatnot.

However, that is not the underlying assumption. The underlying assumption of your argument is that one can use a symbol entirely divorced from it's historical, and current, context. It's clear that you understand that is an underlying assumption, even if you refuse to acknowledge it, because you've been trying to justify it by rewriting history. Specifically, your thesis of the Confederate flag can represent "heritage, not hate" seems to rest on your contention that the pre-Civil War North was morally equivalent, in terms of slavery, to the pre-Civil War South.

So, here is the root question of critical thinking: Why do you think that?

Are you intellectually honest enough to answer?

You are wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

Why do you think I'm wrong?

 

[RandFan]

You are wrong.

I'm with you when it comes to mob mentality and free speech. As to what the flag means, there are American citizens who have valid reasons to find the flag not only deeply offensive but a means to keep alive racial animosity. You cannot reasonably deny that the flag is deeply polemic.

In reference to the apostle Paul, I find nothing virtuous, lovely or of good report when it comes to the flag. I find divisiveness and a symbol of atrocity beyond our ability to even comprehend.

The "other" supposed representations I believe are ad hoc rationalizations or indoctrinated beliefs smuggled in to justify keeping this bit of hate.

 

[Rare Truth]

Quick history question - were the two sides conscript or volunteer armies?

Overwhelming voluntary on the North's part. (only 2% were draftees)

But the use of substitutes by those who could afford it really ticked off quite a few.

That gave rise to some of the Draft Riots in NYC. "Rich man's war, - poor man's fight" was heard a lot.

Also, in the South, they enacted a 20 Slave Law. Own 20 slaves? No fight. No probs.

 

[Giordano]

Overwhelming voluntary on the North's part. (only 2% were draftees)

But the use of substitutes by those who could afford it really ticked off quite a few.

That gave rise to some of the Draft Riots in NYC. "Rich man's war, - poor man's fight" was heard a lot.

Also, in the South, they enacted a 20 Slave Law. Own 20 slaves? No fight. No probs.

Absolutely correct in the citations I could find: about 2% draftees. I also understand that although the use of substitutes by wealthier people really ticked off many, the actual percentage of paid substitutes was perhaps 6%. So again, the overwhelming composition of the Union army was composed of true volunteers.

 

[Giordano]

You are wrong.

And we are reduced to "You're wrong!" with no novel arguments or rebuttals of prior points? Well, that's better than the frequent endless loops of re-iterated arguments that I often see in the political threads, where certain threads wander about for a bit, only to return to the same old points made over and over again a few pages apart. Apparently a number of posters believe that shear endurance, allowing them to submit the last post in the thread, somehow verifies their position.

Well, I am very happy with the points I've already tried to get across in this thread. I don't expect to overtly convince the posters who have taken the opposite position. I believe that they remain convinced of their positions, but if I have left behind something for them to mull about a bit and think about from time to time, I am immeasurably please.

 

[pgwenthold]

So what was the symbolism being portrayed by the flags being displayed when Obama arrived in OkC the other night?

I'm sure they were just expressing their deep-seated love of southern culture, right?

For those who want to compare it to the Union flag, think about the message that would have been sent if they had waved a Union flag instead.

What about the guy I saw with a big Confederate flag attached to his truck yesterday. What message is he sending? Heritage not hate? Yeah, right. Hard to call "stick it to the PC crowd" not a message of hate.

 

[Reheat]

So what was the symbolism being portrayed by the flags being displayed when Obama arrived in OkC the other night?

I'll just add what several others have already said in this thread and expect to be ignored by the know it all PC crowd.

They were waving what is known as the Rebel Flag, not the Confederate States Flag. It was a battle flag as has been pointed out time and time again. To most it is a symbol of defiance with no racial connotations whatsoever. Everyone who opposes Obama and his policies do not do so because of racial issues that so many would lead you to believe.

Oklahoma is a RED state, so many there oppose Obama and everything he stands for vis-a-vis his policies.

I am NOT defending the Rebel Flag, but I do understand mostly why it's used. Most of my ancestors were on the Union side. I spent the vast majority of my adult life as an Officer in the USAF. So, I'm not interested in debate about it. I've read enough here to make me sick already.

Just because some racists murderous jerk bigots hijacks a symbol doesn't mean that all who use that symbol agree with those sentiments, just as the Nazi's hijacked a religious symbol (a very close likeness of it) does not mean that we should obliterate the Swastika because it is a symbol of hatred. It has different meanings and is used as a symbol throughout the world by hindus/buddists and a couple of other lesser known religions. The symbol is not exactly the same, but most would be unable to see the difference as it is a very close likeness.

 

[NoahFence]

I'll just add what several others have already said in this thread and expect to be ignored by the know it all PC crowd.

They were waving what is known as the Rebel Flag, not the Confederate States Flag. It was a battle flag as has been pointed out time and time again. To most it is a symbol of defiance with no racial connotations whatsoever. Everyone who opposes Obama and his policies do not do so because of racial issues that so many would lead you to believe.

Oklahoma is a RED state, so many there oppose Obama and everything he stands for vis-a-vis his policies.

I am NOT defending the Rebel Flag, but I do understand mostly why it's used. Most of my ancestors were on the Union side. I spent the vast majority of my adult life as an Officer in the USAF. So, I'm not interested in debate about it. I've read enough here to make me sick already.

Just because some racists murderous jerk bigots hijacks a symbol doesn't mean that all who use that symbol agree with those sentiments, just as the Nazi's hijacked a religious symbol (a very close likeness of it) does not mean that we should obliterate the Swastika because it is a symbol of hatred. It has different meanings and is used as a symbol throughout the world by hindus/buddists and a couple of other lesser known religions. The symbol is not exactly the same, but most would be unable to see the difference as it is a very close likeness.

I'd like to know why the very real pain and suffering associated with that flag never really enters the equation. We're all too busy defending it to stop and think of what it means to others. Those who have lost loved ones to the lynchings and the Dylan Roof type morons - are they not allowed to express anger at the sight of it? Why does their opinion matter less than the good ol' boys drinkin' whiskey on the flat bed of their pickup truck?

 

[Upchurch]

I'll just add what several others have already said in this thread and expect to be ignored by the know it all PC crowd.

They were waving what is known as the Rebel Flag, not the Confederate States Flag. It was a battle flag as has been pointed out time and time again.

This has not been ignored by anyone. The distinction isn't important. It was still flown by an enemy state in the defense of the institution of slavery. It was also, specifically, adopted by the segregationists in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education decision as well as the KKK.

You can argue the nomenclature, but the symbolism attributed to it is accurate.

To most it is a symbol of defiance with no racial connotations whatsoever. Everyone who opposes Obama and his policies do not do so because of racial issues that so many would lead you to believe.

Let's test that claim. Were Confederate flags flown in opposition to any other President's appearance or policies in the last, say, three decades?

Just because some racists murderous jerk bigots hijacks a symbol doesn't mean that all who use that symbol agree with those sentiments, just as the Nazi's hijacked a religious symbol (a very close likeness of it) does not mean that we should obliterate the Swastika because it is a symbol of hatred.

Earlier in your post, you complained about people who ignored points that had already been made, even though no one has. Here, you ignore a point that has been made several times. The religious symbol existed and had meaning long before the Nazis appropriated it.

This is not the case with the Confederate flag. It was created to symbolize the side defending the institute of slavery which, in the US, was inherently racist. It's adoption by segregationists and the KKK was not a hijacking of that symbolism but a continuation of it, most of whom were even from former Confederate states.

If anything, the exclusion of racism from the meaning of the Confederate flag is an attempt to "hijack it" (or more charitably, "redeem it") from it's original symbolism. The problem is that it isn't working because (1) no one has forgotten what it actually symbolizes and (2) simply claiming that it isn't racist isn't convincing when the claim is not followed up with actions supporting that claim.

 

[jimbob]

Just because some racists murderous jerk bigots hijacks a symbol doesn't mean that all who use that symbol agree with those sentiments, just as the Nazi's hijacked a religious symbol (a very close likeness of it) does not mean that we should obliterate the Swastika because it is a symbol of hatred.

Earlier in your post, you complained about people who ignored points that had already been made, even though no one has. Here, you ignore a point that has been made several times. The religious symbol existed and had meaning long before the Nazis appropriated it.

This is not the case with the Confederate flag. It was created to symbolize the side defending the institute of slavery which, in the US, was inherently racist. It's adoption by segregationists and the KKK was not a hijacking of that symbolism but a continuation of it, most of whom were even from former Confederate states.

If it was a black swastika at a 45-degree tilt in a white circle on a red background, then I'm going to say that is the Nazi symbol.

If it is older than the 1930's then it isn't.

If it is at 90-degrees, and is associated with South Asian imagery and a different set of colours, then it probably isn't.

However there was not a cross of St Andrew with 13-stars on it that was remotely common* before it was used as the symbol of tyranny and hate and the right to treat someone else as property due to the colour of their skin.






*I am not going to say it didn't exist, but I would be very surprised.

 

[Reheat]

I'd like to know why the very real pain and suffering associated with that flag never really enters the equation.

Which flag are you referring to? The stars and bars or the stars and stripes. It would be difficult to say which caused more pain, hunger and suffering in the areas that were occupied by both armies and where most of the battles were fought. And I'm only addressing the War for Southern Independence, not all of the wars where the stars and stripes was a symbol.

One who has never been in a war zone where battles are fought have little clue as to the pain and suffering that causes.

Yes, I fully realize slavery was a very bad institution and I am in no way defending it. However, I also know that many of the horror stories were also balanced by the fact that some families considered the slaves as part of their extended families. In fact, in my genealogical research I've found many Bible Records where the detailed birth and death records of slaves were kept in the same family Bible that the rest of the family was kept in. In many of those families some slaves stayed even after the Emancipation Proclamation kicked in. Many of those are buried in the same Cemetery as their former owners families were. It was a different time with different attitudes yet many judge it in view of present attitudes.

 

[Checkmite]

Just because some racists murderous jerk bigots hijacks a symbol doesn't mean that all who use that symbol agree with those sentiments

More like just because some people "inexplicably" choose to hijack a well- and long-established symbol of a failed government that existed to fight for slavery and oppression and either feign innocent ignorance of that established connection or try to rationalize it away, doesn't mean the rest of us have to humor the charade.