• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you support the government flying the confederate flag......

Which would you support on federal or state property?

  • Total voters
    42
Ahlevah said:
Yeah, but we're really talking about the flag, not slavery.
Click to expand...
We were speaking about what the flag's originally meaning.

It did not represent hatred and racism.


Ahlevah said:
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.
Click to expand...
1. Doesn't matter to it's original meaning.
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.


Ahlevah said:
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.
Click to expand...
Distinction without a difference?
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:




AlbqOwl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Totally.
So pardon me while I respond to the rest of what you said.


AlbqOwl said:
It is racist only to the extent that a people of one race assumed power over the people of another race.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
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.


AlbqOwl said:
just because they were of a different race. It was racist because they considered those they enslaved inferior to themselves.
Click to expand...
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.
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.
 
Excon said:
We were speaking about what the flag's originally meaning.

It did not represent hatred and racism.


1. Doesn't matter to it's original meaning.
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?
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.
So pardon me while I respond to the rest of what you said.


I disagree.
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.
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.
Click to expand...

What made it racism was that black people were seen as inferior beings and therefore could be enslaved. When only black people are seen as suitable to be made slaves and white people are not, that is racism.
 
Excon said:
We were speaking about what the flag's originally meaning.
Click to expand...

Right. It was used in battle in a war which ended in 1865 and was later incorporated into the Confederate national flag. But, thanks to Jim Crow and the post-WWII bigots, it has no place on a modern state flag. I mean, this symbol dates back 6,000 years and is a good luck charm in Buddhism and Hinduism, but good luck getting it on a state flag:

HinduSwastika.png

Excon said:
It did not represent hatred and racism.
Click to expand...

Neither did the swastika, but then we see what happened there. In the words of Paul to the Galatians: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
 
tarheel said:
All states that were part of the Confederacy are only allowed to exist if their state constitution forbids succeeding from the United States. South Carolina would be violating their own constitution if they flew a Confederate flag over their capitol building.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense.
 
AlbqOwl said:
What made it racism was that black people were seen as inferior beings and therefore could be enslaved. When only black people are seen as suitable to be made slaves and white people are not, that is racism.
Click to expand...
Either you are not paying attention to the conversation you decided to quote from, or you are simply ignoring it.

We are speaking to it's origins.
There was no racism in the act of slavery no matter who was doing the enslaving.

They were seen as inferior becasue they were a slave, not becasue of their race.

Again.
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.

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.​




Ahlevah said:
it has no place on a modern state flag.
Click to expand...
Says who?
There happens to be a lot of folks who think otherwise and who see it as meaning something other than the biased bs of the perpetually aggrieved.


Ahlevah said:
but good luck getting it on a state flag
Click to expand...
Right now? Not here, but possibly in another country where it exist on different flags.

Here, it could happen at some point in the future.

If you are interested in helping it get back to it's original meaning.
Reclaim The Swastika : The symbol for spiritual victory
 
Excon said:
Either you are not paying attention to the conversation you decided to quote from, or you are simply ignoring it.
Click to expand...

You're not paying attention to anything that happened after 1865.

Excon said:
We are speaking to it's origins.
Click to expand...

The origin is irrelevant in the current context. The flag was expropriated and added to state flags by bigots as a form or resistance to segregation. Get the blinders off.

Excon said:
There was no racism in the act of slavery no matter who was doing the enslaving.
Click to expand...

But then there was Jim Crow, the Dixiecrats, George Wallace....
 
Ahlevah said:
You're not paying attention to anything that happened after 1865.



The origin is irrelevant in the current context. The flag was expropriated and added to state flags by bigots as a form or resistance to segregation. Get the blinders off.
Click to expand...
You get your blinders off.
And I noticed you didn't reply to what was said to you showing you are not paying attention
I addressed 1956 and yet you say I am not paying attention to anything after 1865. Showing again that it you who are not paying attention or choosing to be dishonest.

The origins are very relevant to the what we were discussing. Which apparently I have to remind you again. It was not based on hate and racism.
Just because the perpetually aggrieved want to make it about hate and racism doesn't mean it was.

So again back to 1956, it again was about a rebellious attitude to an overbearing Federal Government actions against a State. Again the Federal Government was taking away something that was legal. Which is much the same as the original intent. Which is not hatred and racism.


And no it was not expropriated. It may have been used to represent such amongst certain folks but it meant more than that to others and still does today.

One side does not get to claim it as only meaning one thing when it clearly doesn't.
 
Excon said:
You get your blinders off.
Click to expand...

They are. John Marshall Stone, Theodore Bilbo, and Ross Barnett, to name a few, are all dead and buried. Time we bury their flag with them.

Excon said:
And I noticed you didn't reply to what was said to you showing you are not paying attention
Click to expand...

Not much to say, other than what I already did. For all practical purposes, the swastika is dead, too, at least outside of Buddhist and Hindu nations. It will be quite some time before it's resuscitated, if ever. The same principal applies to the Battle Flag. Too many of the wrong people wrapped themselves in it.

Excon said:
I addressed 1956 and yet you say I am not paying attention to anything after 1865. Showing again that it you who are not paying attention or choosing to be dishonest.
Click to expand...

Well, you blew it off by saying it didn't matter. It does matter because white supremacists who controlled the various legislatures were the ones who had it placed on the state flags, including Georgia's. You're completely disingenuous to ignore the background as to why that symbol was added to state flags during Jim Crow and the segregation period:

"Some Georgians persist in believing that the pride of the south is better defined by a symbol of defiance and intolerance: the Confederate Battle Flag, which was imposed on our state flag in 1956. Of all the arguments that have been to keeping this flag, the most infuriating to me is the contention that if we don't, we will somehow forget the sacrifices made by those who fought for the confederacy. It has nothing to do with the bravery of the confederate troops. It is clear the flag was changed in 1956 to identify Georgia with the dark side of the confederacy. That desire to deprive some Americans of their equal rights that have a birth right of all Americans. And yes, the determination to destroy the United States if necessary to achieve that goal. The legislators who voted to change the flag in 1956 were prepared to defy the supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution. They were prepared to eliminate our public schools in order to maintain segregated schools, segregated public transportation, segregated drinking fountains. We have long since repudiated every element of those shameful 1956 days of defiance except for the flag they created. We now proudly send our sons and even our daughters abroad to defend the United States of America yet we maintain as a symbol of our state, a flag that challenges the very existence of the United States of America. And a flag that exhibits pride of the enslavement of our ancestors"

1993 State State Miller Georgia Flag | Video | C-SPAN.org
Click to expand...

You should take time to listen to the entire address. It will set you free from your sandbox.
 
Ahlevah said:
They are.
Click to expand...
No they are not as it didn't mean hatred and racism and it still doesn't to a great many.




Ahlevah said:
Not much to say, other than what I already did. For all practical purposes, the swastika is dead, too, at least outside of Buddhist and Hindu nations. It will be quite some time before it's resuscitated, if ever. The same principal applies to the Battle Flag. Too many of the wrong people wrapped themselves in it.
Click to expand...
:doh It is still used by those who know it's original intent. So you have no valid argument.



Ahlevah said:
Well, you blew it off by saying it didn't matter. It does matter because white supremacists who controlled the various legislatures were the ones who had it placed on the state flags, including Georgia's. You're completely disingenuous to ignore the background as to why that symbol was added to state flags during Jim Crow and the segregation period:
Click to expand...
:doh Not at all. As I pointed out it's meaning is close to the original of opposition to an overbearing Federal Government taking away something that was legal.



Ahlevah said:
You should take time to listen to the entire address. It will set you free from your sandbox.
Click to expand...
:doh You need to stop buying the bs and be free of your sandbox.
 
Excon said:
No they are not as it didn't mean hatred and racism and it still doesn't to a great many.
Click to expand...

Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever, eh? George Wallace -- YouTube

Excon said:
:doh It is still used by those who know it's original intent. So you have no valid argument.
Click to expand...

If some Civil War reenactors want to use it or a museum wants to display it, fine, but it doesn't belong on a state flag.

Excon said:
:doh Not at all. As I pointed out it's meaning is close to the original of opposition to an overbearing Federal Government taking away something that was legal.
Click to expand...

Don't be shy. You mean the federal government threw ice water on the bigotry, racism, and hatred of Jim Crow.

Excon said:
:doh You need to stop buying the bs and be free of your sandbox.
Click to expand...

Look, I love Mississippi. The people here--black and white--are extremely generous, and race relations these days are a hell of lot better now than they were when I was growing up. But I would be a fool to ignore the dark side of my state's past. Most of us have moved on, but there are still a few bubbas here stuck in a time warp. Fortunately, they're a distinct minority, for the times, they are a-changing.

Bob Dylan -- The Times They Are A-changin" -- YouTube
 
I don't care what flag is flown...flags are INCREDIBLY overrated.

They can fly a flag of almost anything and I would not care much at all.

Anyone that gets excited about flags needs a LOT more in their lives.
 
Excon said:
:spin:

The flag was deliberately modeled on the U.S. flag, as the South claimed to be upholding the true heritage and intent of the Founders.
Georgia​
Click to expand...

Why not? People fussed over the previous Georgia flag. The one after that I guess didn't hold people's interest either, so I guess they decided to model after a Confederate flag.
 
clownboy said:
Not the federal, but any state that decides it wants to fly those flags is up to the people of those states. That's the problem with continually lumping them together as you have here. They are separate entities in their grants of power.
Click to expand...

Did the people of, say SC, vote on it?

Because that might paint a different picture.
 
HorseLoverGirl said:
Excon said:
Ahlevah said:
View attachment 67186237View attachment 67186238

(Hint: The flag on the left represents hate and racism. The one on the right represents the state whose nickname is "The Peach State.")
Click to expand...
:spin:

The flag was deliberately modeled on the U.S. flag, as the South claimed to be upholding the true heritage and intent of the Founders.
Georgia​
Click to expand...
Why not? People fussed over the previous Georgia flag. The one after that I guess didn't hold people's interest either, so I guess they decided to model after a Confederate flag.
Click to expand...
In reference to that which I replied; Wut?
 
HorseLoverGirl said:
Its not obvious?
Click to expand...
Asking "why not" in reference to a statement that "why not" wouldn't apply does leave the question as to what you were speaking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom