Confederate Flag

Richard Hillman · 20-08-2017 2:57pm

FrostyJack wrote: »

And if the town wants a statue to the cops who beat Rodney King, they should put it up, right? Nonsense. Just because a majority wants it doesn't make it right.

Yes, because that's democracy.

If they want them, Hitler, Stalin etc they should get them.

If people vote to send minorities to camps, they should get it.

That's democracy. The people should get the society they want. They will decide if it's good or bad. Society should dictate what's good and bad. Not the media and not small groups of people.

Grayson · 20-08-2017 3:01pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes, because that's democracy.

If they want them, Hitler, Stalin etc they should get them.

If people vote to send minorities to camps, they should get it.

That's democracy. The people should get the society they want. They will decide if it's good or bad. Society should dictate what's good and bad. Not the media and not small groups of people.

So if someone voted to send you off to a camp, you'd walk off quite happily?

Richard Hillman · 20-08-2017 3:03pm

Grayson wrote: »

So if someone voted to send you off to a camp, you'd walk off quite happily?

How did you come to that conclusion?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 20-08-2017 3:19pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes, because that's democracy.

If they want them, Hitler, Stalin etc they should get them.

If people vote to send minorities to camps, they should get it.

That's democracy. The people should get the society they want. They will decide if it's good or bad. Society should dictate what's good and bad. Not the media and not small groups of people.

Are you serious?

A Little Pony · 20-08-2017 3:38pm

Grayson wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

Certainly remove these statues to museums. They were erected to let black people, know their place, underfoot.

I wouldn't at all agree with removing plaques that tell the reader who was born here and why they are famous/well known. Totally different.

But they should also be in context.

"Joe Bloggs was born here. He fought a war to retain the institution of slavery"

It's still accurate.

Or to defend his state from an invasion by Lincolns Army.

Academic · 20-08-2017 3:58pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes, because that's democracy.

If they want them, Hitler, Stalin etc they should get them.

If people vote to send minorities to camps, they should get it.

That's democracy. The people should get the society they want. They will decide if it's good or bad. Society should dictate what's good and bad. Not the media and not small groups of people.

The U.S. has a constitution which structures its government in such a way as to limit what is called "the tyranny of the majority," of which your claim is a classic example.

Most mature western democracies have something similar of course. Otherwise a majority of the people in your town could decide they don't like you and could then simply vote to kill you and take your property.

Leroy42 · 20-08-2017 4:11pm

What I dont understand is why do they want statues for these guys. They lost.

They are celebrating an alternative to the country they actually claim to love. These men actively took up arms against the US.

They talk about enemies of the US who hate freedom etc but that is exactly what they are celebrating.

Its very different from celebrating freedom fighters that died as they each played a part in advancing the cause.

Surely these guys should be seen as enemies of the US?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 20-08-2017 4:29pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

What I dont understand is why do they want statues for these guys. They lost.

They are celebrating an alternative to the country they actually claim to love. These men actively took up arms against the US.

They talk about enemies of the US who hate freedom etc but that is exactly what they are celebrating.

Its very different from celebrating freedom fighters that died as they each played a part in advancing the cause.

Surely these guys should be seen as enemies of the US?

A lot of southerners value race above their country.

FrostyJack · 20-08-2017 5:50pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

What I dont understand is why do they want statues for these guys. They lost.

They are celebrating an alternative to the country they actually claim to love. These men actively took up arms against the US.

They talk about enemies of the US who hate freedom etc but that is exactly what they are celebrating.

Its very different from celebrating freedom fighters that died as they each played a part in advancing the cause.

Surely these guys should be seen as enemies of the US?

It is to do with the fantasy the the evil government are out to get them and they can rebel at anytime. It is a paradox of sorts, they would claim to be the most American, support the constitution the most and love freedom, but when it doesn't suit the rest of their World view that all goes out the window. Even with Trump in office they grow more divided from the rest of the country, spoon fed Fox news and talk radio, they won't look outside the bubble and don't care what the rest of the civilized World thinks. In fact they wear it as a badge of honour not to be like the rest of the World as if is a good thing.

Water John · 20-08-2017 5:55pm

The Unionists of NI in relation to the way the UK actually runs is a similar counter view to the actual reality.

Manic Moran · 20-08-2017 7:02pm

One has to remember that even though a lot of foreigners don't realize just how independent US states are today (think Ireland in the EU), in the mid 19th Century, they were viewed as even more so. Remember that the oath of Commissioning that officers swore before the civil war was to the States, not to the Federal Constitution or to the union or D.C. Even military units of both North and South were identified by State. Example, Chamberlain's 20th Maine held Little Round Top against Hood's 15th and 47th Alabama. Lincoln did not enter the war to free slaves, he entered it to ensure the primacy of the Union. After all, if a State could secede at will, maybe a county could secede from a State, or a city from a county, or maybe a neighborhood or house from a city. He believed that this would lead to anarchy, people declaring independence every time there was a disagreement.

So to Lee, for example. "If Virginia stands by the old Union, so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life."

They were sons of their States, devoted to them. No less loyal to Virginia or Georgia than a British soldier would be to the UK in the event that the EU ruled that they would not permit Brexit. As such, it is not unreasonable for a State to want to honor its dedicated warriors. This doesn't negate the arguments against the monuments given the trigger issue of slavery, but is an argument in favor of at least some. It is for this reason that the US Army names a lot of its bases after Confederate officers. The policy is to name them after local men, and down South, you have folks like Lee or Hood: Great officers from those Sates who did what they saw as their loyal patriotic duty.

Manic Moran · 20-08-2017 7:02pm

This double-post problem on mobile is annoying.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 20-08-2017 9:42pm

A Little Pony wrote: »

Or to defend his state from an invasion by Lincolns Army.

The south started the conflict. They attacked the Union army.

flutered · 20-08-2017 9:46pm

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The south started the conflict. They attacked the Union army.

which answers nothing

flutered · 20-08-2017 9:48pm

Please do not use the $1,$20,$50, or the $100 bills as they have pictures of former slaves owners. Send them all to ME and I will dispose of them properly. Don't throw them away as they need to be disposed of properly and I'm certified to do so.
If you have misplaced my address, let me know.
Regards

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 20-08-2017 9:53pm

flutered wrote: »

which answers nothing

It does undermine the oddly pervasive idea that the south was solely fighting a defensive war.

Richard Hillman · 20-08-2017 10:12pm

Academic wrote: »

Not really. Federal law still trumps state law in most cases; the Supreme Court trumps state courts; etc.

And European Law trumps National Laws but they are still independent states

A Little Pony · 20-08-2017 10:12pm

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Or to defend his state from an invasion by Lincolns Army.

The south started the conflict. They attacked the Union army.

They wouldn't get out of Southern territory. Lincoln got what he wanted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 20-08-2017 10:16pm

Reconstruction wasn't nearly hard enough on the southern slaveholders. They successfully stripped blacks of their new rights for nearly a century and their descendants are still in denial about their region's rotten history.

Academic · 20-08-2017 10:42pm

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Reconstruction wasn't nearly hard enough on the southern slaveholders. They successfully stripped blacks of their new rights for nearly a century and their descendants are still in denial about their region's rotten history.

People who really want to learn about the complexities of the Reconstruction period will ultimately need to read Eric Foner’s Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. Be sure to get the 2014 updated edition. At almost 700 pages, it exhaustively lays out in great detail pretty much everything that’s known, and is universally regarded as the definitive source. Published by Harper Perennial.

pickarooney · 20-08-2017 11:16pm

They have one president and one football team and that's all that counts. Sorry.

Pherekydes · 21-08-2017 12:05am

pickarooney wrote: »

They have one president and one football team and that's all that counts. Sorry.

What're you on about, they have 32 football teams.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 21-08-2017 12:17am

"Of all the state governments that published “declarations of the causes of secession” like these (some published shorter “ordinances of secession”), none mentioned the ostensible injustices of America’s tariff system. None complained of high taxes, or even states’ rights in a general sense. All, however, passionately pontificated on the necessity of preserving an institution of slavery; and that no such preservation could be maintained within the Union as it was then organized. Ironically, secession, and the creation of a Confederacy was the only conceivable way of maintaining the status quo."

https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/

Richard Hillman · 21-08-2017 12:21am

pickarooney wrote: »

They have one president and one football team and that's all that counts. Sorry.

We only have one golf team :P

Snickers Man · 22-08-2017 6:41pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes, because that's democracy.

If they want them, Hitler, Stalin etc they should get them.

If people vote to send minorities to camps, they should get it.

That's democracy. The people should get the society they want. They will decide if it's good or bad. Society should dictate what's good and bad. Not the media and not small groups of people.

That is pea-brained bull ****. Democracy is NOT merely about the dictatorship of the majority. It is about much more than that. It is government by the majority for a limited period of time and within the boundaries of the law, which are themselves USUALLY established by a written constitution.
Certainly this is the case in the US and Ireland, and most European republics.
Nearly all countries have a set of fundamental rights that cannot be infringed by some jerk just because he won an election.
If you said that in the US, they'd run you out of town for being "un American"!

Water John · 22-08-2017 10:00pm

It's the fundamental error or mistaken choice Trump made. not wanting or understanding his role as POTUS was for all the people, not just those who elected him.

23-08-2017 10:02am

I just read that ESPN, have pulled a reporter named Robert Lee, from reporting a game, in case his name offended anyone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/business/media/robert-lee-university-virginia-charlottesville.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/23/media/espn-robert-lee-uva-game/index.html

This is crazy, beyond belief.

The_Valeyard · 23-08-2017 10:16am

Jake1 wrote: »

I just read that ESPN, have pulled a reporter named Robert Lee, from reporting a game, in case his name offended anyone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/business/media/robert-lee-university-virginia-charlottesville.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/23/media/espn-robert-lee-uva-game/index.html

This is crazy, beyond belief.

Wonder is it just a completely moronic move by a failing company or publicity stunt

fyfe79 · 23-08-2017 10:49am

timthumbni wrote: »

Context is everything with flags. I grew up hating the Irish flag because the only time I saw it was on Ira terrorists coffins.

Now I accept that it's simply the Irish flag. I still dislike it when it's used in a republican rally for example but know how to differentiate the two.

The irony is that the flag was created (replacing the green harp flag) as a gesture of goodwill between Ireland and Britain - white (representing peace) in between green and orange. That idea is lost on both those that irrationally love or hate the flag based on their own prejudices.

Confederate Flag

Comments