- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
We were speaking about what the flag's originally meaning.Yeah, but we're really talking about the flag, not slavery.
It did not represent hatred and racism.
1. Doesn't matter to it's original meaning.I mean, why would Georgia, for example, put a huge Confederate Battle Flag on its state flag in 1956, almost 100 years after slavery ended? The fact is you had a lot of white folks who didn't like blacks in their schools, restaurants, hotels, parks, etc, and they wanted to send a message to the country and federal government that no one was going to tell them how they should treat their niggers.
2. It was similar in what it originally represented, a rebellious attitude to an overbearing Federal Government actions against a State. Again the Federal Government was taking away something that was legal.
Distinction without a difference?Okay, I thought you were referring to the Moorish invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, but, be that as it may, you're engaging in a distinction without a difference. Whether the people were enslaved with an army or a naval incursion or landing force is irrelevant to my point, which was the invader depended on military force and had no interest in the moral aspect of slavery.
The difference in what we was being spoken about is extreme. You are speaking about spoils of wart which were allowed.
Versus what I was speaking about which amount to be criminal acts. Piracy and marauding. Which I believe is a distinction with a difference. :shrug:
Agreed. Totally.IMO we as a people have so politicized and polarized the issue of racism that many now assign 'racism' to what is in no way racist and fail to see what is racist in what they themselves promote or support.
And more sadly, the tendency is to demand that others support our sociopolitical views or else they are targeted to be demonized and, if possible, crushed. Such is a very unhealthy thing for a people who presumably value liberty. Such as people not being allowed to assign their own interpretation of the Confederate flag and declared racist if they do not see it in the politically correct definition.
So pardon me while I respond to the rest of what you said.
I disagree.It is racist only to the extent that a people of one race assumed power over the people of another race.
Just because blacks were sold to folks of other races does not in any way make it racist or racism when the ownership of a any slave changed hands from from black to white.
That is not racist or racism. Darn near all races have been enslaved at some point in time. Thinking a slave was inferior by position was part and parcel of slavery.just because they were of a different race. It was racist because they considered those they enslaved inferior to themselves.
Which were the points already made.
When a black person owned a black slave it was not racism, it was slavery. When white person owned a white slave it was not racism, it was slavery.
When those folks owned slaves of other races it was not racism. It was still just the legal institution of slavery.