SC Confederate Flag Taken Down From State Capitol in South Carolina

DDD said:

It seems mixed races work against white supremacy, without which the South cannot possibly survive. Anyone care to add to this?

Click to expand...

Sure...

lol

Y

Glen Contrarian said:

Then you haven't been to the Delta. I've been there almost every year (until last year) since I left back in 1981 and I have yet to see a biracial couple there. Having grown up there, I know why. Maybe you haven't made the connection yet...or you have, and don't want to admit it.

Click to expand...

Risky Thicket said:

All of my life and that of my family the battle flag has been a symbol of Southern pride. I can only recall a relatively few times in my life that I saw the flag portrayed in a racist hateful manner. Never did it ever occur to me or my family or my friends or neighbors that the flag represented racism. To us it represents pride in Southern heritage and culture, a culture distinct from other parts of America.

You may feel anyway you wish about the flag, but you may not tell me how me and mine and most Southern people I know feel about the flag. From the beginning of the flag hysteria I have supported South Carolina and its decision.

Click to expand...

Unitedwestand13 said:

I doubt she knows what the term "primary source" document means in the context of historical research.

Click to expand...

The thing is, she is partly right, as the states removed themselves from a government trying to tell them how to live their lives it was based on state rights to own slaves. I shouldn't feel ashamed of a flag nor my relatives in my past for stand up to a goverment forcing their will on the south. It's funny if we were the winners our history books would paint the north as traitors to the constitution not the South. It's usually the victors that writes what in the history books we are taught in the south the main cause is Salvery while other factors also came into play. Sam Houston was removed from the governorship because he was in favor of Texas the union with the states. I am still proud people stood up for what they felt was right that was what this country was build on people standing up to what they thought was right.

Glen Contrarian said:

Then you haven't been to the Delta. I've been there almost every year (until last year) since I left back in 1981 and I have yet to see a biracial couple there. Having grown up there, I know why. Maybe you haven't made the connection yet...or you have, and don't want to admit it.

Click to expand...

Risky Thicket said:

All of my life and that of my family the battle flag has been a symbol of Southern pride. I can only recall a relatively few times in my life that I saw the flag portrayed in a racist hateful manner. Never did it ever occur to me or my family or my friends or neighbors that the flag represented racism. To us it represents pride in Southern heritage and culture, a culture distinct from other parts of America.

You may feel anyway you wish about the flag, but you may not tell me how me and mine and most Southern people I know feel about the flag. From the beginning of the flag hysteria I have supported South Carolina and its decision.

Click to expand...

DDD said:

It seems mixed races work against white supremacy, without which the South cannot possibly survive. Anyone care to add to this?

Click to expand...

Sure lmao apparently the south never mixed with others beforehand cough cough The south is a very proud culture of many races.

Risky Thicket said:

All of my life and that of my family the battle flag has been a symbol of Southern pride. I can only recall a relatively few times in my life that I saw the flag portrayed in a racist hateful manner. Never did it ever occur to me or my family or my friends or neighbors that the flag represented racism. To us it represents pride in Southern heritage and culture, a culture distinct from other parts of America.

You may feel anyway you wish about the flag, but you may not tell me how me and mine and most Southern people I know feel about the flag. From the beginning of the flag hysteria I have supported South Carolina and its decision.

Click to expand...

But it stands for seceding, Thicket?

DDD said:

If the Brits are not as bad, then why did Indians rebelled against them?

Click to expand...

Because frankly the only Brits who attempted to get along with them was the early settlers. Once the Brits had what they needed they treated the Native Americans like crap.

HorseLoverGirl said:

Because frankly the only Brits who attempted to get along with them was the early settlers. Once the Brits had what they needed they treated the Native Americans like crap.

Click to expand...

Shyacks!

I meant real Indians, not Native Americans.

DDD said:

Shyacks!

I meant real Indians, not Native Americans.

Click to expand...

And plus a majority of the Native American gennocide happened after the boom of state power and subsidized railroads during and after the civil war, almost 100yrs after the Brits left...

The reason India rebelled against England is because they were tired of the English monetary colonization... Basically the exact same reason the colonies rebelled against England.

Libertie76 said:

And plus a majority of the Native American gennocide happened after the boom of state power and subsidized railroads during and after the civil war, almost 100yrs after the Brits left...

Click to expand...

The word "genocide" is used ambiguously. Did a Native American (or more) completely disappeared through murder and assimilation? Or was it an attempt to genocide like Tattars in Crimea from Russians, Hebrews in Europe from Deutch, Albanians throughout the Balkan wars till 1999 from Slavs?

Libertie76 said:

The reason India rebelled against England is because they were tired of the English monetary colonization... Basically the exact same reason the colonies rebelled against England.

Click to expand...

My position is that exchanging rulers from North America to that of British may not be a better option.

Libertie76 said:

And plus a majority of the Native American gennocide happened after the boom of state power and subsidized railroads during and after the civil war, almost 100yrs after the Brits left...

The reason India rebelled against England is because they were tired of the English monetary colonization... Basically the exact same reason the colonies rebelled against England.

Click to expand...

Agreed, just like the Native Americans here in the states of America they were treated like trash and denied basic freedoms like the right to practice their religion....Gandhi is my hero he overthrew a government without firing a shot who's said civil disobedience never does anything positive.

Meanwhile in Melbourne Florida, our city council decided to drop an issue brought up by a councilmember to ban the Confederate Flag at city functions and parades.
See, we know how its done and who to tell go pound sand.

Ryriena said:

Agreed, just like the Native Americans here in the states of America they were treated like trash and denied basic freedoms like the right to practice their religion....Gandhi is my hero he overthrew a government without firing a shot who's said civil disobedience never does anything positive.

Click to expand...

i credit the creation of free market principles for ghandi and his ability to overthrow a government just by civil disobedienc, but this is not a debate for economics, I am attempting to show that allowing people to be free will create a variety of the best thinkers and give them the ability to shine through full potential. Let's imagine if ghandi were around in the 1500s, he would of been executed.

That being said, I want to make it as clear as possible, the majority of people that treated the native Americans in this manner were in favor of nationalism and strong centralized government. This is the party and political teachings of nationalists and war Hawks. These nationalists and war Hawks are the same political faction of the United States that was pro Union and were the ones who wanted to not only deport all black people but we're in favor of abolitionism because they thought slavery was hurting white laborers . They did not want to "free black people" out of morality they wanted to free slaves rather they wanted abolition because they wanted protectionist policies for white workers. THis is very very important to understand because many people associate the confederate flag as a racist symbol but it's based on misconception of the actual history.

Racism existed throughout the United state but was only made prominant by the state authority, which means that when people want to "abolish racism" with state legislature they are actually giving more power to the body that enacted the racists policies to begin with...

Libertie76 said:

i credit the creation of free market principles for ghandi and his ability to overthrow a government just by civil disobedienc, but this is not a debate for economics, I am attempting to show that allowing people to be free will create a variety of the best thinkers and give them the ability to shine through full potential. Let's imagine if ghandi were around in the 1500s, he would of been executed.

That being said, I want to make it as clear as possible, the majority of people that treated the native Americans in this manner were in favor of nationalism and strong centralized government. This is the party and political teachings of nationalists and war Hawks. These nationalists and war Hawks are the same political faction of the United States that was pro Union and were the ones who wanted to not only deport all black people but we're in favor of abolitionism because they thought slavery was hurting white laborers . They did not want to "free black people" out of morality they wanted to free slaves rather they wanted abolition because they wanted protectionist policies for white workers. THis is very very important to understand because many people associate the confederate flag as a racist symbol but it's based on misconception of the actual history.

Racism existed throughout the United state but was only made prominant by the state authority, which means that when people want to "abolish racism" with state legislature they are actually giving more power to the body that enacted the racists policies to begin with...

Click to expand...

Very interesting, I was wondering how you came to this conclusion, if I might ask?

CRUE CAB said:

Meanwhile in Melbourne Florida, our city council decided to drop an issue brought up by a councilmember to ban the Confederate Flag at city functions and parades.
See, we know how its done and who to tell go pound sand.

Click to expand...

It'll be gone one day.

Montecresto said:

It'll be gone one day.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is, gone from where? None of our government buildings have a CSA flag anywhere near them.
She was mad because a float in a Fourth of July parade had some "rebel flags".
Even our most dumbassed councilmember said its a ridiculous issue.

Montecresto said:

It'll be gone one day.

Click to expand...

Which will be never as I believe this whole thing will blow over when the media finds another "critical issue that we need too face". Sad thing is, this whole thing was what he wanted to happen as it won't improve race relations just because the media says it does. Yeah it just hides the goverment racist tendencies and puts a bandaid on the issue to begin with the real issues.

Lmao still getting post from rawstory calling me racist and stuff

One day, the corporate racists will run out of empty symbolic nothingness to fight against, look in the mirror, and focus on their real issues. And those issues don't involve white people, a flag, the police, or something that happened 150 years ago.

CRUE CAB said:

Funny thing is, gone from where? None of our government buildings have a CSA flag anywhere near them.
She was mad because a float in a Fourth of July parade had some "rebel flags".
Even our most dumbassed councilmember said its a ridiculous issue.

Click to expand...

If it was ONLY a float, agreed. You said "city functions"!!! Whole other thing.

Ryriena said:

Which will be never as I believe this whole thing will blow over when the media finds another "critical issue that we need too face". Sad thing is, this whole thing was what he wanted to happen as it won't improve race relations just because the media says it does. Yeah it just hides the goverment racist tendencies and puts a bandaid on the issue to begin with the real issues.

Lmao still getting post from rawstory calling me racist and stuff

Click to expand...

Yes symbolism flown high in pride of the American blood shed to defend the institution of human trafficking and slavery will blow over.

Montecresto said:

If it was ONLY a float, agreed. You said "city functions"!!! Whole other thing.

Click to expand...

That was her thing. She wanted to make sure they were banned at city functions, buildings, parades, parties, gatherings, meetings, or anywhere on city property including employee vehicles.

Ryriena said:

Very interesting, I was wondering how you came to this conclusion, if I might ask?

Click to expand...

About ghandi or the northern racism?

Well if you look at the writings of the most predominant free soilers, the initial group that laid the foundation for the Republican Party abolitionist stance, they go into great detail on protectionist policies. The entire republican platform, at that time, was based on protectionist policies. They wanted extremely high tariffs rates and they favored big subsidies for steel and railroad. They attempted to subsidize canals, and roads which led to disaster. That, along with hardings death led to failure of the Whig party because Tyler came in and was extremely lasseiz fairs with his policies. The reconstruction of the Whigs included elements of the free soilers which adapted the party's platform and expanded it to the west.

If you read the writings and the platform of these people it's basically saying they wanted to expand the union west away from slave states, not because they hated slavery per se but because they wanted to have land where the laborers were not effected by competition with slaves. They also wanted non slave states to join the union because, at that time, slaves votes counted for 3/5 of a vote. They were worried that if western migration occurred with slavery the southern democrats would outvote the free soilers and it would lead to a policy that was lasseiz fare and non protectionist, I.e. Lower tariffs and less subsidies.

They also strongly opposed immigration, because immigrants brought in democratic votes because a majority of immigrants were pro lasseiz faire, this is easily explained because immigrants opposed strong national governments hence the fact that a majority of the immigrants moved here, at that time. It wasn't until later that the city and state governments started hiring Irish immigrants by the droves which later went to the expansion of immigrants becoming prostate

This is why the republicans and the free soilers created public schools, they thought Catholicism needed to be destroyed and said it was a moral sin against the union, if you will. So they started attempts to outlaw alcohol, and started teaching Protestant virtues in public schools. All were geared at eliminating the "libertarian" tradition of lasseiz faire, mainly because they were worried that these democrats would bring in policies that would eliminate the economic protection, as well as an assault on their religion or morality based on pietism and Protestantism.

These people attempted to outlaw alcohol in places like Kansas, because at that time the major political meeting ground for the democrat party was in taverns and bars, because a majority of these "libertarian" democrats who were immigrants brought their customs with them and one of the customs espexially with the Irish was to have all village social gatherings stem from he local bar. So the republicans were attempti to illegalize alcohol for the sole purpose of disrupting the democratic parties ability to have any political gathering space.

The main concern of the Republican Party was "free soil, free labor" modern historians view this as a thought of homestead act agreements to give out parcels of land to farm workers, and to relieve the slaves from slavery. The real reason for this "free soil, free labor" theory was that they wanted homestead laws to subsidize railroads, which later led to the extermination of the Native American population, and free labor was to end slavery from competition of the white labor market and restrict immigration to protect the "native born" white pietists and Protestants in their freedom of labor without outside competition.

Many liberal democrats switched to the Republican Party at first because of the "abolitionist" stance, and then when it became a nationalist party they reverted back to the democrat party. The democrats had a libertarian faction, and a strong state faction and the majority of the democrats that wanted Slavery to exist were doing so because they were worried that the economy of the south would crumble without slavery to the 50/60% tariff rates that were put into place.

Lincoln in his first inaugural address stated to the effect that he would not abolish slavery, that he was pro southern slavery, but he would enact higher tariffs and he wouldn't be afraid to use military force if there is any opposition. This lead to the civil war, and the confederate flag was used in the civil war to honor the southern history of military fighters, especially in Virginia. The northern states were enacti Jim Crow policies in Illinois, during Lincolns rise to politics, Lincoln also voted yes on the Chicago black code which would essentially criminalize all blacks from being citizens in Chicago, and Lincoln was in favor of an agenda to send all blacks to Africa after the civil war.

Ryriena said:

Very interesting, I was wondering how you came to this conclusion, if I might ask?

Click to expand...

To finish it off, we see a majority of racial expansion after the civil war. The genocide of the native Americans, the Jim Crow laws. Etc etc.

We had slavery, which was only possible through state force, we had a 3/5 compromise which was only achievable through state power. However, themarket place led to the first millionaire women being black as well as liberalization of the workforce. If we eliminated the state, those racial policies would of never existed. But because of the nationalism under the Lincoln era not only did state sponsored racism expand we also killed a ton of innocent people, restricted immigration and all of those issues are still a major focus of American politics today. The racial issues we face today are a direct correlation to nationalism that expanded under the Lincoln era.

Libertie76 said:

i credit the creation of free market principles for ghandi and his ability to overthrow a government just by civil disobedienc, but this is not a debate for economics, I am attempting to show that allowing people to be free will create a variety of the best thinkers and give them the ability to shine through full potential. Let's imagine if ghandi were around in the 1500s, he would of been executed.

That being said, I want to make it as clear as possible, the majority of people that treated the native Americans in this manner were in favor of nationalism and strong centralized government. This is the party and political teachings of nationalists and war Hawks. These nationalists and war Hawks are the same political faction of the United States that was pro Union and were the ones who wanted to not only deport all black people but we're in favor of abolitionism because they thought slavery was hurting white laborers . They did not want to "free black people" out of morality they wanted to free slaves rather they wanted abolition because they wanted protectionist policies for white workers. THis is very very important to understand because many people associate the confederate flag as a racist symbol but it's based on misconception of the actual history.

Racism existed throughout the United state but was only made prominant by the state authority, which means that when people want to "abolish racism" with state legislature they are actually giving more power to the body that enacted the racists policies to begin with...

Click to expand...

First of all, I think it's at least safe to say that the abolitionists were motivated by a variety of factors. Many absolutely believed in human rights for all races. Others no doubt opposed slavery on practical grounds. And while the attitudes of Southerners to slavery and blacks is also complicated, you really can't read the words of the men at the time and conclude they weren't racists and white supremacists. They made this clear in every statement. Blacks weren't considered capable enough as humans to fight in a war.

The idea that the Rebel flag is a racist symbol isn't a misconception if the "actual history" is the flag's recent history in the 1940s-1960s. That legacy is continued on by the KKK among others.

And when it came to Jim Crow laws, that's the problem with "states' rights." The Southern states in the modern era thru the 1960s were fighting for their "right" to oppress blacks through state laws. It's unclear what the solution to that could have been but a Federal government tasked with protecting rights of citizens in those states.

DDD said:

If the Brits are not as bad, then why did Indians rebelled against them?

Click to expand...

Native Americans did not want their land taken away. They probably didn't like the idea of being enslaved anymore than Africans or Irish. Britain began systematically settling a wide protective buffer zone of Irish, Scots-Irish and Germans between the wealthy enclaves of Brits along the coastal region and Native Americans inland. It wasn't as if the Brits were hanging out with the local Native Americans.

Who do you supposet was that watched African slaves and indentured Irish as they disembarked from British ships flying the Union Jack? From the mid 1600s to the mid 1700s the British likely exported more Native American slaves to the Caribbean than it import African slaves to what is now America.

In the mid 1600s alone over 100,000 Irish children between 10 and 14 were captured by the British and sold into slavery in the Caribbean. Irish slaves, approximately 40,000 - owned by the British - largely settled Barbados. To a lesser extent it happened on other islands as well. It was no secret. Plantation owners, foremen, slaves re-transported from the lslands to the British colonies in what is now the U.S. certainly knew what the British were doing. Native Americans saw the ships with the Union Jack and they heard the stores. Native Americans shortly after encountering the British had reason to become wary of the them. Their trepidation was later validated.

Those were likely some of the reasons that Native Americans "rebelled" against the British.

DDD said:

But it stands for seceding, Thicket?

Click to expand...

Indeed, the battle flag was flown over Southern troops who were fighting to defend the Confederate States of America that had seceded from the Union. I agree.

JasperL said:

First of all, I think it's at least safe to say that the abolitionists were motivated by a variety of factors. Many absolutely believed in human rights for all races. Others no doubt opposed slavery on practical grounds. And while the attitudes of Southerners to slavery and blacks is also complicated, you really can't read the words of the men at the time and conclude they weren't racists and white supremacists. They made this clear in every statement. Blacks weren't considered capable enough as humans to fight in a war.

The idea that the Rebel flag is a racist symbol isn't a misconception if the "actual history" is the flag's recent history in the 1940s-1960s. That legacy is continued on by the KKK among others.

And when it came to Jim Crow laws, that's the problem with "states' rights." The Southern states in the modern era thru the 1960s were fighting for their "right" to oppress blacks through state laws. It's unclear what the solution to that could have been but a Federal government tasked with protecting rights of citizens in those states.

Click to expand...

Well KKK use a variety of flags, however the confederate flag does not stand for racism any less then the expansion of the centralized government

There were real abolitionists who believed in human rights etc, but that is not the scope of the free soilers and Republican Party.

When I say racist expansion is a result of the state I am referring to government in general. A state government enacted Jim Crow laws is the exact concept I am citing. If we had just open free market principles without any government, racism would cease to exist. I am saying the expansion of racism is a direct result of nationalism and centralization even if it is on the "state level"