Stephens, and I, was talking about the foundation of the Confederacy, ie slavery.
You are asking how will the removal of a symbol deeply associated with a slave system of Blacks from display by a state govt reduces animosity of Blacks towards state govt? That should be self evident. Further, the elimination of state sponsored displays of a symbol of institutional racism decreases the legitimacy of its use by extremists. That should be self evident too.
Racists using the US flag does not make it a symbol of state sponsored racism.
OH NOES!!!! ITS A SYMBOL OF OPPRESSION!!!!!!
What something stands for is in the eye of the person viewing it. I don't see the confederate flag standing solely for slavery. In fact I see it standing for a representation of the ideal that we have a right to be governed by consent. Those in the south no longer consented to the tariffs that were unfairly punishing the southern economy for its reliance on imported goods. I would also say, based upon the actions taken by Abraham Lincoln in trying to keep the union together, that they made the right decision to leave shortly after his election. I mean, suspension of habeaus corpus... imprisoning people for speaking out against the war with no charges and no trial... even when the supreme court issued a ruling that he couldn't do this... he had the chief justice arrested. He shut down newspapers that criticized him.... He allowed his Generals to burn down southern towns and slaughter civilians.
Since I said "it is self evident" that those who have seen it as a source of conflict for long time have been working to eliminate it....again, the question of how it reduces the animosity....should be a no brainer.
I suppose that since your argument is based on the ignorance of the history of the the resurgence of the use of this flag, it would be easy to to portray this as "idiocy"....not to mention ironic to boot.
I'm afraid that trying to explain to why it was a source of fear for a large portion of the population is pointless, let alone why it would cause animosity among this same population.
This is an argument that the individual determines the history of a symbol, and that this view should be the dominate view. There is no escaping that the Confederacy was fundamentally a slave system, it was created to preserve slavery. The flag represents this fact, your argument is based on avoidance of the overriding point.
I did, i have, over and over.
Already answered, ignoring the point does not negate it. Ignoring points, facts is not a legit dialectic technique.
Probably not, but it removes another bit of legitimization of the symbol.
Absolutist rhetoric is pointless.
Already answered, ignoring the responses is not debate.
Yes... by saying, "Its obvious"
"Its Obvious" isn't articulating anything.
Why do you think people found it "legitimate" because it was on a state flagpole?
No, not entirely, there was a definite wave of thought and actions defined in the USC to eliminate slavery. The Nation, it symbols and laws changed from that Colonial holdover.
Again, this does not negate the fact that the Confederacy was based on the fundamental policy of slavery.
Again, you have decided to ignore the answer(s).
That is not all that I wrote, ignoring the rest is not debate.
I did not say it was legitimized because it was "on a flagpole", this is called straw, you are now not only ignoring what I wrote, you are putting words in my mouth. This is not debate.
again, you ignore the reasons, this is not debate.
You don't get to ignore responses and then declare anything, that is not how debate works.
Wait - up until 2 years ago, the US oppressed Iraqi's and Afghani's and killed their people indiscriminately. The American flag hasn't changed since 1958 as far as I know.
