The South Will (not) Rise Again?

But that's a false equivalence. It was resurrected explicitly to recall the Civil War and oppose Civil Rights. It's not the state flag.

The Confederate Flag would be more comparable to flying a swastika than a St. George's cross

Fleawuss

It's the flag of rebellion against the USA so it is effectively a declaration of treason for US citizens to fly it or use it in a way that identifies it as their primary allegiance. All sorts of stuff will be said that the civil war was about secession but it was at root about slavery. The confederate flag is a symbol of hatred, racial exploitation and slavery. It's an embarrassment to the southern states and they need to realize that 150 years ago they were beaten. It should be left to the neo nazis and racists as their ID. It's as good as saying "here I am, a racist who believes the color of my skin makes me superior".

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

But that's a false equivalence. It was resurrected explicitly to recall the Civil War and oppose Civil Rights. It's not the state flag.

The Confederate Flag would be more comparable to flying a swastika than a St. George's cross

The Swastika is more to do with Genocide. A lot of modern flags are either directly related or a previous version of a country flag in Europe are from nations that took part in the slave trade.

mynamejeff

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

And a flag that is flown in South Carolina in defiance of civil rights for African Americans

?? what ?

how exactly is in a country built on individual freedoms is the choice of one person to display a flag in defiance of another persons civil rights ?

being uncomfortable and feeling offended is not a civil right.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

I

I doubt many saw it as any crusade by Catholics or Protestants. Of course there was a hugely sectarian element to it.

I think that, unlike the Church of England, Scottish Protestantism maintained a virulent intolerance for catholicism and that intolerance extended to any other ethnic group when they emigrated/colonized abroad, as in ulster and the american south.

It seems to be a characteristic of that particular ethnicity

mynamejeff wrote: »

?? what ?

how exactly is in a country built on individual freedoms is the choice of one person to display a flag in defiance of another persons civil rights ?

being uncomfortable and feeling offended is not a civil right.

It is flown at the South Carolina State House; I'm not referring to any individual. It has been flying there since 1962, after a resolution passed by South Carolina legislators to fly it in opposition to the Civil Rights movement.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for the flag, it's a hard one to call. I mean, clearly the South was wrong. But on the other hand, it had some attractive personalities, from the nobility of Robert E. Lee to the brilliance of Stonewall Jackson, contrasting with the likes of McLellan and Grant, the vindictiveness of Sherman and so on. It's hard to know, should the flag that they stood for (and that's even putting it at it's highest point, of course it wasn't strictly speaking "the flag of the Confederacy", but one of them) be ditched because of our take on matters now? I think I would marginally favour doing so, if it causes offence and the offence is genuine, I think that outweighs its value.

The flag stands for different things to different people. Banning it is simply a dumb idea that will solve none of the problems that modern day racism raises. In any case, if people still want to get hold of a Southern flag, they will, regardless of the ban. The hakenkreuz is banned in Germany, but it's still possible to get one if you're so inclined.

Frankly, the only thing the ban on that particular symbol does is inconvenience scale modelers of WWII aircraft and vehicles.

What's the next symbol up for a ban? The Hammer and Sickle? The Skull and Crossbones?

It's ridiculous. Akin to a sticking plaster over a missing limb.

Tony EH wrote: »

The flag stands for different things to different people. Banning it is simply a dumb idea that will solve none of the problems that modern day racism raises. In any case, if people still want to get hold of a Southern flag, they will, regardless of the ban. The hakenkreuz is banned in Germany, but it's still possible to get one if you're so inclined.

Frankly, the only thing the ban on that particular symbol does is inconvenience scale modelers of WWII aircraft and vehicles.

What's the next symbol up for a ban? The Hammer and Sickle? The Skull and Crossbones?

It's ridiculous. Akin to a sticking plaster over a missing limb.

But but but taking the flag away will solve the problem ? The flag itself radiates Racism and causes people to be racist.

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

But that's a false equivalence. It was resurrected explicitly to recall the Civil War and oppose Civil Rights. It's not the state flag.

The Confederate Flag would be more comparable to flying a swastika than a St. George's cross

The swastika is a good luck symbol used by many cultures throughout history.

Why should a single period in history get to outweigh everything else?

Besides swastikas are found all over the world.

Tony EH wrote: »

The swastika is a good luck symbol used by many cultures throughout history.

Why should a single period in history get to outweigh everything else?

Besides swastikas are found all over the world.

So for instance, you'd be in favor of a local legislature in Germany flying the Swastika on official grounds?

mynamejeff

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

It is flown at the South Carolina State House; I'm not referring to any individual. It has been flying there since 1962, after a resolution passed by South Carolina legislators to fly it in opposition to the Civil Rights movement.

why is it so hard or people to accept that you can be white, from a southern state and proud of your history and family history without being racist.

do you know how many people were involved in slavery in the US ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8VCbvMoCV8

darkpagandeath wrote: »

But but but taking the flag away will solve the problem ? The flag itself radiates Racism and causes people to be racist.

But is it only the Confederate battle flag that radiates racism? Or is it every Confederate States flag?

Would most people who get "upset" by flags even recognise the first Confederate flag? Or the Flag of South Carolina?

There were quite a few secessionist flags.

wendell borton

crockholm

Missouri was a slave owning state that fought with the Union against the Confederacy,so there are always little quirks of history.Fwiw, the times I spent in the south,many people felt being southern meant being different-and maybe the flag encapsulated that feeling of separate identity.

Flags and what they symbolize or represent is a very taxing subject and subject to paradigm shifts,often over great periods of time.

As for solutions?I guess remove the flag from courthouses and federal buildings,the stars and bars should suffice there,but don't go looking to remove the flag from existence,maybe it won't ever be reclaimed by the mainstream for a symbol of the new south which is seeing black people return to their southern roots one hundred years on from the great migration,but it is a part of a lot of people's,and good people too,identity.

Chain Smoker

mynamejeff wrote: »

?? what ?

how exactly is in a country built on individual freedoms is the choice of one person to display a flag in defiance of another persons civil rights ?

being uncomfortable and feeling offended is not a civil right.

It was resurrected for official use in 1962... doesn't take a genius to figure out what kind of message that may have been implying. The state of Georgia added it to the state flag in 1956 for explicitly similar reasons. I believe its usage for state related business has been curtailed hugely in both states in recent years though (leaving Mississippi as the sole state that's 100% committed to it).

I'm sure there are plenty of people in the south who have attached all kinds of different meanings to it (or even just focused on the other arguments for the split) and aren't at all racist but, unfortunately, whatever additional meanings it may have had went far too long without divorcing themselves from its origins outside of the south to be able to remove the racist connotations now. Banning it is ridiculous but no state or corporation should which officially supports it should expect to operate on an national or international level without it causing more grief than it's worth.
This debate was inevitable and it's a bit surprising it has taken until now to truly come to a head in global news, the individual states have been debating it for decades.

crockholm wrote: »

Missouri was a slave owning state that fought with the Union against the Confederacy,so there are always little quirks of history.Fwiw, the times I spent in the south,many people felt being southern meant being different-and maybe the flag encapsulated that feeling of separate identity.

Flags and what they symbolize or represent is a very taxing subject and subject to paradigm shifts,often over great periods of time.

As for solutions?I guess remove the flag from courthouses and federal buildings,the stars and bars should suffice there,but don't go looking to remove the flag from existence,maybe it won't ever be reclaimed by the mainstream for a symbol of the new south which is seeing black people return to their southern roots one hundred years on from the great migration,but it is a part of a lot of people's,and good people too,identity.

Was the stars and Bars not a flag around and used on buildings when black Segregation was around ?

20Cent

Remove the flag from public buildings but don't ban it. It makes a useful way for identifying racists and bigots.

20Cent wrote: »

Remove the flag from public buildings but don't ban it. It makes a useful way for identifying racists and bigots.

You mean just like the stars and Stripes ?

topper75

Racism is believing that a race is superior to another, right?

When you are aware that the guy who made the following statement (and waged five years of bloody war against the people represented by the stars on the "offending" flag) has a big stone monument to him in Washington to this day, the red and blue flag over a dome is no longer really an issue at all:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

crockholm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Was the stars and Bars not a flag around and used on buildings when black Segregation was around ?

It was on display when some of the best and worst attributes of humanity happened around it,as is the case with most flags,but the desire to forge a new national flag is....not gaining much momentum.;)

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

So for instance, you'd be in favor of a local legislature in Germany flying the Swastika on official grounds?

But, for what? The tricolour national flag serves their purpose. The hakenkreuz is a symbol of the past. It doesn't need to be flown.

There are plenty of countries around the world that have old flag designs that aren't flown.

Finland doesn't fly a swastika any more. Why should they.

wes

A part from the racism, I have never understood why the US allowed various states to fly a flag of succession on government buildings. Its a bizarre thing to do imho.

Tony EH wrote: »

But, for what? The tricolour national flag serves their purpose. The hakenkreuz is a symbol of the past. It doesn't need to be flown.

There are plenty of countries around the world that have old flag designs that aren't flown.

Finland doesn't fly a swastika any more. Why should they.

So on what basis should South Carolina fly the Confederate battle flag in front of the State House?

Ask South Carolina.

Are you saying they fly it because they're racist?

Dyr

times are tough for flegs nowadays

There'll be confederate flegs hanging from lamp posts across norn iron for the summer now though

falan

Deleted User wrote:

With your extensive connections there, you only know people who always referred to Catholic bombers and a Catholic campaign of terrorism, and as I said I only know people who referred to Irish bombers and an Irish campaign of terrorism.

I might have picked you up wrong. I agree with you to some extent. Sorry :-)

Merces

wes wrote: »

A part from the racism, I have never understood why the US allowed various states to fly a flag of succession on government buildings. Its a bizarre thing to do imho.

Yeah, the flag of a confederation which commited treason and declared war on the United States. Surely it's just as unpatiotic to fly the Confederate flag as it is to fly an ISIS or North Korean flag.

Mind you in Cork the blood and bandage is flown alongside the tricolor in many public places.

Herb Powell

Tony EH wrote: »

Ask South Carolina.

Are you saying they fly it because they're racist?

It was flown in 1962 in protest the ruling that segregated schools were unconstitutional.

Very rarely do we actually see such a clear-cut example of racism.

whisky_galore

Load of bollix, as if this is going to stop rascism and shooting rampages.