The commonly accepted "Confederate Flag" was actually a battle flag, not the official flag of the CSA. So, to me it represents attacking the United States. The great thing is, this is a free country and people can display whatever they want.
My mother's maiden name is Macon. It is also my middle name. Her father was born in 1882 in Blythewood, South Carolina, son of a long line of Macons who trace back to Huguenot France. They arrived in Virginia when this nation was still in infancy. My grandfather's lineage includes Nathaniel Macon, dubbed "father of the House of Representatives": associate of Thomas Jefferson and intimate of LaFayette, etc. His family connects with Washingtons and Madisons. His grandfather was a Baptist minister attached to a Confederate regiment; his father a drummer boy. My mother, former Genesee County Historian, taught Civil War history to school children through period songs. I'll cook-you-up the best collard greens you ever tasted. I believe I have the credentials to comment on issues relative to Confederacy and the "stars and bars."
Although I'm proud of my southern heritage, I also have reason to be ashamed. My family-name is synonymous with the institution of slavery. It is for that very reason that I became a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center many years ago. In the course of researching my family genealogy I was forced to confront the names and numbers of people my predecessors kept as slaves.
The battles of the Civil War are far-removed from our 21st Century lives. Yet the event remains a benchmark demarcating political, religious and economic perspectives. Some of the burden translates into continued debate over state VS federal rights. The rest of the burden is more subtle and iconic and becomes better visible when a map is colored blue and red.
The stars and bars resurfaced in the 1950s as a symbol of Southern sovereignty in the face of a Supreme Court decision that challenged traditions of overt and de facto segregation. Despite the flag's historical significance, it became a rallying point for racists. The stain of racism is inextricably merged with the fabric of that banner, and no manner of rhetoric can undo the association. It explains why white supremacists, neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan identify with the stars and bars.
Therein lies the basis, the disdain of those who object to use of that banner in any official capacity. The intent of those who display the stars and bars can be discerned from the manner it is displayed. On a museum wall it becomes a memento of history. In the rear window of a pickup truck inches from a thirty-ought-six and twelve-gauge-pump, it is an inflammatory statement.
I used to like the flag, after all it was on the roof of the General Lee. As I grew older I realized how many used that flag. When the flag is on a car or truck up here, it is a racist symbol. When I travel in the south many southerns cringe at the site of it.
After living in South Texas in the early 80's, it was very plain to me what the flag stands for. Rebelion, White Supremacy, and Narrowminded White Pride. Even my white face didn't save me from their scrutany. One Mashetti toten, truck drivin, flag flyin, gun toten, southern boy said to me, " So your a Damn Yankee"? You know what we do with them don't ya? (as he slid his 3 ft. Mashetti out from behind his seat(and Laughed). Back then there were white and black sections in resturants also.
This Northern girl, saw first hand, the mentality of "some" that were Hard-Core Southern Racists. Thats my opinion on the Confederate flag, as I see it.
The Confederate flag is a symbol among many in our history including words and phrases that have been hijacked by those spreading hate as well as those falsely claiming hateful intention. Using the same litmus test we could identify many more. Do beads represent the hatred and oppression of the indigenous people of this country after we stole Manhattan from them? Do Lucky Charms represent the hatred and oppression of Irish immigrants treated so poorly after coming to our shores in search of a better life? It is time to stop creating hatred. We are a country that has made mistakes, learned from them and moved on. We should do the same.
And C.M., I'm sorry but heritage and credibility are not synonymous. I can trace my ancestry to a soldier who fought for the other side. I have a copy of the letter he wrote having been wounded in battle and visited by President Lincoln. He shook his hand and chatted about things of war. This does not give me credentials to speak on the Union or Abraham Lincoln. I can trace my ancestry directly to Johann Gutenberg, this does not give me credentials to speak on the history of printing. My wife can trace her ancestry to famous German choclatiers, and while I can attest she is an expert on chocolate, she is no more credentialed to speak on it's history than I am. We all have storied ancestries, but on issues of heritage and credibility we are all equal.
I must admit I am a son of a immigrant, but I believe in honoring one flag that represents one nation which is called The United States of America. I borrowed this link but if you are feeling patriotic you will enjoy.
It's stupid, redneck and hillbilly but I don't care. Just don't be an ass if you see a Mexican American displaying a Mexican Flag on Cinco de Mayo. Or anyone else who displays a flag from their country of origin. We're supposed to be the civilized people, remember? I know it's hard sometimes, for me too.
A quick lesson in symbolism: an octagon is a shape; red is a color. When you color an octagon, red, you have a stop sign. For a symbol to work, it has to be universally recognizable. A blue triangle won't stop traffic.
Rather than reiterate my previous opinion, I offer the state of Georgia's official interpretation of the 1956 alteration of their state flag to include the Confederate Battle Flag:
A quick lesson in human behavior: If a man runs out into an intersection holding up a blue triangle, with his hand outstretched yelling STOP, traffic will stop.
If he does it often enough to the same group of people, they will soon learn to associate the blue triangle with STOP and will respond accordingly.
I agree that a symbol must be univerally recognizable, but it doesn't mean that it can't have more than one meaning to a different subset of people.
It is a learned behavior, just like racism and bigotry.
Hey Joanne, I guess you never had to cross main st here on a friday at rush hour LOL. Blue triangle and waving crutches around wont stop people from beeping or running you down. ;P
As a former Civil War reenactor (for the NY 140th lead by Colonel Patrick O'Rourke who led his troops down Little Round Top with the command "Down This Way Boys!" while his entire command was unloaded) and believer in states rights and the 10th Amendment, I find the flag to be a symbol of pride, and freedom to do what one thinks best even if it is morally wrong to others.
Symbols have been taken and ruined throughout history. The Swastika was a symbol of peace before Hitler adopted it.
Just because a symbol is used by someone else for something you morally object to, doesn't make the symbol a symbol of evil.
I was born and raised in the western suburbs of Rochester. I have no southern blood. As a matter of fact the O'Brien side of my family came here to the US on a horse from Canada. You don't need southern blood or ties to see that the Stars and Bars represent more than an attempt to keep slavery established.
Though slavery was a major contributor for the South's secession, they chose to leave when it was obvious that they Southern states had no power left to influence Washington. When Lincoln was elected, every Southern state voted against him and he still was able to get the electoral college majority. That is why they left. They were a powerless minority whose way of life was about to be abruptly changed.
Seems to me that is the same reason United States was formed. Seems to me that the Star and Bars meant Freedom to most since most were not slave owners.
Historical perspective should not be lost when discussing that symbol.
Peter; in any case, it is still the battle flag for a country which declared war on the United States, and opened fire first.I try to imagine what life would be like if Lincoln hadn't staunchly preserved the Union and Andrew Johnson hadn't followed Lincoln's wishes to let the southern states back in. We wouldn't be the superpower we are and enjoy the prosperity we have. The effects of the events of the first half of the 20th century in Europe and Asia would have shaped the world much differently. That flag stands for just what you wrote: " I find the flag to be a symbol of pride, and freedom to do what one thinks best even if it is morally wrong to others." except I'd change the last to "wrong to ourselves". The Confederates had no vision and couldn't get into the 19th century, let alone realize that the Industrial age was upon them. They ought to praise Lincoln for saving their sorry butts.
Dave look how long it took for the US to develop a good government. They didn't worry much about it till the war handled. I am sure the Confederates would have come around eventually and had a government very similar to what they left and even they knew that slavery was not destined to last.
I could go on but none of that matters.
Chris, they out numbered their suppressors, all they had to do was rise up.
With what knowledge of war and uprising? Were they educated? Could they organize?
With what future in mind? Should they attack the master only to watch him murder their wives and children? Would they have been allowed to go free after they took the plantation by force?
The best result a slave could hope to achieve after a rebellion would be to be killed swiftly, of course that wasn't likely to happen.
Your ignorance is offensive. Before you pretend to know anything about how simple it would have been for slaves to break their chains read up on Gabriel Prosser, Nat Turner and the German Coast Uprising. You should have learned about all of these events during your liberal public school education.
Slaves throughout history have not only been caged and controlled by their masters, but with the full force of military might. Every slave holding civilization since the dawn of man has used military force to either collect slaves or to enforce the institution of slavery once it has been established. It took equal military force in America to end the disgusting practice of owning another human being and to suggest that it was somehow the slave's fault for not improving his/her lot in life is a testament to your own twisted outlook.
Descendants of slaves in this country still feel the master's lash when people like you fly the confederate battle flag. It has been less than 150 years since Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation, a drop in the bucket of history. 100 years after that executive order was given, black children in America still weren't allowed to attend the same schools as their white counterparts because states were ignoring Brown v. Board of Education.
I'm tempted to continue on here, but I suppose it's not really worth the effort. People like Peter will never get it, and they don't have to. It's not illegal in America to be ignorant of reality.
Framing the mentality of a slave population would not only monopolize the bandwidth of this site, it would be a project of imagination- there is no parallel in our culture. Even the recent news item detailing the woman held sex-hostage by her Austrian father pales by comparison. She knew, on some level, that her situation was an aberration; the world outside her basement prison did not condone her mistreatment.
African slaves were brought to this country against their will, as commodities in a legal and culturally accepted business. They were bought, sold, inherited and gifted as merchandise. They were bred and treated like cattle. They had no income or property. For the most part they were uneducated. Their race- if not general appearance- was the equivalent of prison-issue. They had few opportunities to maintain a family unit- no less conspire. The north had no great desire to provide sanctuary for them; which in part explains why they tried to get to Canada. In any event- what did they know of the world beyond the fields they worked. They knew escaped slaves were hunted down, beaten and mutilated to discourage repeated flight.
Black populations held majority in only three southern states: Mississippi, Louisiana and South Carolina. They accounted for 40% of the population in the remainder of the south. The north's vision, administered via post-war reconstruction, was to form a southern culture of co-existence. That vision failed due to under-estimation of southern humiliation and resentment, inability (or disinterest) to suppress white retaliation on blacks and the general collapse of southern agriculture. The short-lived period of black civil advancement was reversed and the beginnings of black migration from the south began in the 1870s. Blacks first moved west (Kansas) with white homesteaders and from rural south to southern cities. Their routes tested the depths of white resentment. It was apparent that the north had not anticipated nor desired refugees from the collapse of the old south. Black servants and porters were a tolerated novelty; whose ranks were comprised of educated, time-tested blacks. (From the 1915 Hartford Courant: "Colored people in Hartford in the days of yore seemed to have played their part as factotums to the first families and in contributing to the comfort and convenience of the white folks generally.") It wasn't until World War I labor shortages that blacks were admitted to the northern labor pool.
Therein lies the paradox of slave mentality: the alienation of dependency on those who resent, suppress and retaliate. The blacks who refused to leave their (former) owners were not loyal; they were leery of experiencing the alternative.
"Descendants of slaves in this country still feel the master's lash when people like you fly the confederate battle flag." I hope we all have this same passion for Israel as our country turns it's back on them. Their descendants must feel the lash of the same whip that forced them to make bricks for the Egyptians or when their descendants were herded into gas chambers by the Germans or as their greatest ally turns away as hostilities against them mount.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on June 12, 2009 - 9:12am
I am close minded because I have had a lot of time to think on issues and have made up my mind about most of them.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on April 23, 2010 - 10:31pm
....they out numbered their suppressors, all they had to do was rise up.
Based on your opinion, Peter.
Chris and C.M, and others have made mincemeat out of that statement. But, they have to remember that your mind is made up and there isn't much said that will change it.
Jeff- while I have no reason to dislike the State of Israel, it is not our business to be their strong arm. We are not the world's police, and we need to remember that
John said "The poll results speak for itself on this site."
And I say that's a sad commentary.
If our history included older, white, mostly affluent, male oppression this would bring people together to form loosely organized groups of protesters that could gather and holler about the injustice. Oh, I forgot, we actually do have that group.
Poll the people who's ancestors bore the scars from the whips and chains -- it's their history. I don't think it's asking too much to show some deference to the 36 million African American descendants, and those of us white people that see that flag for what it represents -- bondage and oppression.
Jeff- which flag would one fly to antagonize the Israelis? (Bigotry aside, there is no resemblance to the topic of discussion.)
Sans Exodus, what is left of the Jewish heritage?
Without appearing to condone the Holocaust, it must be recognized, if not for post-WW II Jewish DPs, there would be no Israel as we know it. The impetus for the Jewish state was European and American antisemitism vis-a-vis 15 million war-displaced people. Conveniently, Britain had a colony available for relocating Jews. By 1951 400,000 Jewish DPs had migrated from Western Europe to Israel- the former Palestine. In the same time frame 900,000 Jews from Middle Eastern countries fled to the same destination as Arabs succumbed to western-born antisemitism. Following Stalin's purges, 250,000 Jews emigrated from the USSR to Israel.
The back-turning occurred long before now. Adolph Eichmann commanded the Nazi Office of Emigration in Vienna- set up after German occupation. His role was to deport Austria's 180,000 Jews. In a year's time he had reduced the number to 60,000. Hundreds of thousands of Jews in Germany waited on open doors. President Roosevelt called together 32 nations to discuss Jewish emigration in July of 1938. No decision was made despite Germany's acknowledged intent.
Ultimately, the United States admitted about 100,000 prior to 1939 but failed to fill 400,000 quota slots. England accepted 80,000, Holland, 22,000, Belgium, about 13,000, Switzerland, 9,000, Argentina, 20,000, other Latin American countries, about 20,000. British-controlled Palestine admitted about 70,000 prior to 1941. Europe's Jewish population in 1933 was 11 million.
Interesting footnote: several Jewish refugees were interned in Oswego, NY. According to a documentary film, they all had to sign statements, agreeing to return to Europe at the conclusion of the war.
Lorie,
You have really gone off on your own path about us.
This is Genesee County.Sad fact for you that the ethnic make up is what it is. You can go on and on about whips and chains, but that is not what the poll asked.
And again, the poll results show most people who voted don't care about that flag.
Interesting opinion you have of the people (male) around here. I wonder if your candidates this Fall will have the same opinion of us?
"You have really gone off on your own path about us."
Did I really? In actuality the second paragraph in my comment was a generalization from the NY Times Poll done a few weeks ago stating that 18 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. It just so happens that the Confederate flag is prevalent at Tea Party events. Google it.
The two major parties in Genesee County both have a record of running candidates across the diversity spectrum, so don't go there with me. This discussion is about the Confederate flag, not about candidates.
Lorie,
And it is not about the Tea Party either, a group that might hurt your candidates this year. It's about the flag.
But you are the one who made the statement, related to my comment on the local poll, about "older, white, mostly affluent, male oppression this would bring people together to form loosely organized groups of protesters that could gather and holler about the injustice. Oh, I forgot, we actually do have that group".
You didn't say that was only for your anti tea party view, and not the people who voted in the poll.
Will you agree that, based on the poll, most people around here don't care about that flag?
That's a very interesting video - the questioner makes a very foolish assumption that the guy's complaints against social welfare program are based on race that the guy very smartly catches it and deflects it.
Who's the racist -- the guy who objects to welfare or the guy who assumes that anybody who talks about social programs is making a racially charged statement?
When I think chronic welfare recipients, I don't automatically think black -- in fact, I personally almost always picture a white family. So why is the questioner assuming this guy means black?
I don't know what to make the video I posted. It could be, as it purports, a Democrat posing as a racist. It could be a racist who just happened to buy a new shirt and hat. It could be a tea party guy posing as a Democrat who is posing as a racist.
But I will say I'm suspicious of the drum beat "they're all racist" of anti-tea party contingent because that contingent has an obvious political bias to discredit the tea party movement.
I bet there are racists who attend tea party rallies, but that doesn't mean the tea party movement is racist, nor does it, on a logical basis, invalidate the message of the tea party movement. I find the tendency to broad brush the entire tea party as racist really a smoke screen for not dealing with the political agenda of the tea party. Rather than argue the merits of the tea party complaints, opponents want to engage in ad hominem attacks on its members.
The revelatory (pun intended) parts for myself: 1) when the protester more-or-less admits he didn't vote, and 2) same confesses to "bleeding off" (his phrase) the system while complaining about others doing likewise.
On one hand, as a veteran, you can argue he earned some government benefits (especially if a Vietnam Vet, especially more so if drafted); on the other, he is still drawing down revenue and adding to the deficit and doesn't apparently see the irony in that.
On voting, I consider it the right of every American not to vote. I don't think that makes one's opinions any less salient.
I don't disagree, Howard; a protest vote is valid. But for a protest vote to be effective, it must be somehow registered. If he'd been forthright, admitting he didn't vote because none of the candidates represented his ideal- that explanation would have sufficed. On the contrary, he hemmed, hawed and appeared deceitful. Granted the guy is not a pro; still, humility and sincerity give amateurs an advantage on the credibility scale. This guy didn't take himself any more seriously than the blogger did.
One of the objections to electronic voting (aside from the CEO of the prime voting machine vendor pledging to do all he could to elect G. W. Bush) is it marginalizes a protest vote. Of those systems known to provide for write-in and null voting, the process has been described as "complicated." By null voting, a voter doesn't select any candidate, but his/her appearance to vote is recorded. The question remains as to whether write-ins or nulls are even counted. It has been stated that votes for Donald Duck and Goofy will not be recorded.
As I recall, a provision guaranteeing every voter the right to a paper ballot accompanied the transition to mechanical voting machines. That provision apparently no longer exists. There is an organization leading the fight for paper-verified voting and audits http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ ...Not the same- obviously.
California has re-asserted the right to paper ballot in 20 counties. Missouri is pursuing similar. In most cases a paper ballot must be applied for- largely for reasons of absentee or over-seas military ballot. Each state seems to have its own application process.
C.M., the guy knew it would look back to admit that he didn't vote and he didn't know how to answer the question. Either way, to me it's completely a non-issue. Whether he didn't vote because he didn't like the candidates, or wanted to not-vote as a protest or was just 100 percent apathetic at the time is immaterial to me. Either his ideas have merit regardless of who he is and what he does or his ideas don't have merit. Not voting, for whatever reason, does not invalidate anybody's right to speak.
What I'm really addressing is the common adage, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain." I just don't agree with that statement.
While the freedom of expression certainly carries weight for chosing not to vote, there is a point that should be made.
If you chose not to vote,then the decisions made by those who were elected to represent us should be treated with equal apathy or disinterest.
Complaints about those decisions, by those who chose not to vote, have little value.
Until we come up with a new system, the only way to voice our preferences is in the voting booth. Chosing not to participate in this process may be a freedom of expressiion, but hardly qualifies one to continue to complain about the decisions.
C.M. you 'chastise' me with this "Bigotry aside, there is no resemblance to the topic of discussion." in my reference to Israel (people oppressed by virtue of distinction) and yet you are off on the Tea Party, paper ballots, and voting rights and responsibilities.
There are plenty of ways to voice dissatisfaction that are equally as valid as the voting booth, especially in the era of digital community, but in the days of Thomas Paine, he didn't get to vote on his government -- all he had was a pen, and it was a pen that helped change the world.
I will defend the absolute right not to vote with great vigor.
It's called freedom.
And nothing, absolutely nothing, about not voting invalidates the thoughts and opinions of those who don't vote, for whatever reason they don't vote.
You may choose to ignore the non-voter, but that doesn't invalidate his opinions nor deprive him of his right to speak.
The first Amendment gives all people the freedom of expression. I don't recall reading any part of the first amendment that says all people have the freedom of expression if they participate in the election process.
Thomas Paine came from an era when those who could influence by virtue of the pen were far more rare than today. In the digital society you mention, we are deluged with opinion and certainly that is one the protected freedoms as Americans. One can freely address concerns through debate, but should only reasonably expect change through the power of the elective process. Laying aside the influence of money through corporate, union, and lobby pressure voting is the last hope of actual influence the common man has.
Jeff, in the digital age, not all voices are equal. Instapundit and Daily Kos have both grown to some degree of influence by establishing credibility through what is posted.
The opportunity exists for anybody to get their message widely heard.
Expressing ones view point and get it heard is potentially much more powerful today that any time human history, and far more potentially powerful than any single vote. A vote is just one vote. A voice that gets heard potentially influences many, many votes, or convinces a legislator, who's one vote represents many, to do something differently.
Bea, you're arguing from the extreme. It's just not realistic.
Bea, you're arguing from the extreme. It's just not realistic.
I agree it was from the extreme, but it was a thought that hit me while I was reading this. Not really arguing a point, but just an observation.
What would happen if everyone just decided to stay home on election day?
Bea, imagine that. What a message it would send, if even a majority of voters, didn't vote on election days. This subject is all to familiar, and one I was rideculed for in the past. I was never a voter, until I was told by some commenters, that my opinions meant nothing because of it. I see a few "voters" have changed their tune on the subject, or maybe just in this thread.... In my opinion I should have stuck to my beliefs, and not registered. After all, its not the American Peoples votes that count anyway, we are powerless. My vote did absolutely NOTHING.
In the video above, with the White Trash, KKK, Nazi Clown. I am proud that the tea-partiers stood up to that Hate-Munger, and ran him off.
The Tea Party movement, is just what we need, to make Change. These people(in my opinion) are True Americans, that are Absolutely Fed Up with Government, and their Greedy, Shady ways. GO TEA PARTY!!!! DOWN with the KKK!!
Karen,
Less than half the eligible voters vote now, and that is part of the problem. They are too willing to let others vote, run for office, and do things. Then when it goes bad, they sit around and complain.
The commonly accepted
The commonly accepted "Confederate Flag" was actually a battle flag, not the official flag of the CSA. So, to me it represents attacking the United States. The great thing is, this is a free country and people can display whatever they want.
I voted for whatever the
I voted for whatever the person displaying thinks it means but I thought it was interesting enough to look it up :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
Gabor: I did exactly the same
Gabor: I did exactly the same thing.
if the south want to display
if the south want to display it , it does not bother me a bit, if i was southern i fly it my self .people just make to much if things now days.
JoAnne and Dave, I did the
JoAnne and Dave,
I did the same thing and voted the same way.
My mother's maiden name is
My mother's maiden name is Macon. It is also my middle name. Her father was born in 1882 in Blythewood, South Carolina, son of a long line of Macons who trace back to Huguenot France. They arrived in Virginia when this nation was still in infancy. My grandfather's lineage includes Nathaniel Macon, dubbed "father of the House of Representatives": associate of Thomas Jefferson and intimate of LaFayette, etc. His family connects with Washingtons and Madisons. His grandfather was a Baptist minister attached to a Confederate regiment; his father a drummer boy. My mother, former Genesee County Historian, taught Civil War history to school children through period songs. I'll cook-you-up the best collard greens you ever tasted. I believe I have the credentials to comment on issues relative to Confederacy and the "stars and bars."
Although I'm proud of my southern heritage, I also have reason to be ashamed. My family-name is synonymous with the institution of slavery. It is for that very reason that I became a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center many years ago. In the course of researching my family genealogy I was forced to confront the names and numbers of people my predecessors kept as slaves.
The battles of the Civil War are far-removed from our 21st Century lives. Yet the event remains a benchmark demarcating political, religious and economic perspectives. Some of the burden translates into continued debate over state VS federal rights. The rest of the burden is more subtle and iconic and becomes better visible when a map is colored blue and red.
The stars and bars resurfaced in the 1950s as a symbol of Southern sovereignty in the face of a Supreme Court decision that challenged traditions of overt and de facto segregation. Despite the flag's historical significance, it became a rallying point for racists. The stain of racism is inextricably merged with the fabric of that banner, and no manner of rhetoric can undo the association. It explains why white supremacists, neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan identify with the stars and bars.
Therein lies the basis, the disdain of those who object to use of that banner in any official capacity. The intent of those who display the stars and bars can be discerned from the manner it is displayed. On a museum wall it becomes a memento of history. In the rear window of a pickup truck inches from a thirty-ought-six and twelve-gauge-pump, it is an inflammatory statement.
I used to like the flag,
I used to like the flag, after all it was on the roof of the General Lee. As I grew older I realized how many used that flag. When the flag is on a car or truck up here, it is a racist symbol. When I travel in the south many southerns cringe at the site of it.
oops double post
oops double post
C.M.: your perspective is
C.M.: your perspective is enlightening; and what time is dinner?...I would love me some authentic collard greens!
Thank you, C.M. Barons, for
Thank you, C.M. Barons, for such a finely crafted, on-target comment.
After living in South Texas
After living in South Texas in the early 80's, it was very plain to me what the flag stands for. Rebelion, White Supremacy, and Narrowminded White Pride. Even my white face didn't save me from their scrutany. One Mashetti toten, truck drivin, flag flyin, gun toten, southern boy said to me, " So your a Damn Yankee"? You know what we do with them don't ya? (as he slid his 3 ft. Mashetti out from behind his seat(and Laughed). Back then there were white and black sections in resturants also.
This Northern girl, saw first hand, the mentality of "some" that were Hard-Core Southern Racists. Thats my opinion on the Confederate flag, as I see it.
The Confederate flag is a
The Confederate flag is a symbol among many in our history including words and phrases that have been hijacked by those spreading hate as well as those falsely claiming hateful intention. Using the same litmus test we could identify many more. Do beads represent the hatred and oppression of the indigenous people of this country after we stole Manhattan from them? Do Lucky Charms represent the hatred and oppression of Irish immigrants treated so poorly after coming to our shores in search of a better life? It is time to stop creating hatred. We are a country that has made mistakes, learned from them and moved on. We should do the same.
And C.M., I'm sorry but heritage and credibility are not synonymous. I can trace my ancestry to a soldier who fought for the other side. I have a copy of the letter he wrote having been wounded in battle and visited by President Lincoln. He shook his hand and chatted about things of war. This does not give me credentials to speak on the Union or Abraham Lincoln. I can trace my ancestry directly to Johann Gutenberg, this does not give me credentials to speak on the history of printing. My wife can trace her ancestry to famous German choclatiers, and while I can attest she is an expert on chocolate, she is no more credentialed to speak on it's history than I am. We all have storied ancestries, but on issues of heritage and credibility we are all equal.
Great posts! All I know, is
Great posts!
All I know, is that when I wave the American flag, I do so because it is a symbol of tradition and American pride.
When I see groups like the Westboro Baptist Church wave that same flag as they protest at military funerals, it symbolizes something else entirely.
So I am sticking with my initial vote that it means whatever the person waving it thinks it means.
I must admit I am a son of a
I must admit I am a son of a immigrant, but I believe in honoring one flag that represents one nation which is called The United States of America. I borrowed this link but if you are feeling patriotic you will enjoy.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zw-nakKxaR0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zw-nakKxaR0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
It's stupid, redneck and
It's stupid, redneck and hillbilly but I don't care. Just don't be an ass if you see a Mexican American displaying a Mexican Flag on Cinco de Mayo. Or anyone else who displays a flag from their country of origin. We're supposed to be the civilized people, remember? I know it's hard sometimes, for me too.
A quick lesson in symbolism:
A quick lesson in symbolism: an octagon is a shape; red is a color. When you color an octagon, red, you have a stop sign. For a symbol to work, it has to be universally recognizable. A blue triangle won't stop traffic.
Rather than reiterate my previous opinion, I offer the state of Georgia's official interpretation of the 1956 alteration of their state flag to include the Confederate Battle Flag:
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/senate/publications/sro/comm…
The Battle Flag has also been
The Battle Flag has also been removed from all state flags in the south.
A quick lesson in human
A quick lesson in human behavior: If a man runs out into an intersection holding up a blue triangle, with his hand outstretched yelling STOP, traffic will stop.
If he does it often enough to the same group of people, they will soon learn to associate the blue triangle with STOP and will respond accordingly.
I agree that a symbol must be univerally recognizable, but it doesn't mean that it can't have more than one meaning to a different subset of people.
It is a learned behavior, just like racism and bigotry.
Hey Joanne, I guess you never
Hey Joanne, I guess you never had to cross main st here on a friday at rush hour LOL. Blue triangle and waving crutches around wont stop people from beeping or running you down. ;P
As a former Civil War
As a former Civil War reenactor (for the NY 140th lead by Colonel Patrick O'Rourke who led his troops down Little Round Top with the command "Down This Way Boys!" while his entire command was unloaded) and believer in states rights and the 10th Amendment, I find the flag to be a symbol of pride, and freedom to do what one thinks best even if it is morally wrong to others.
Symbols have been taken and ruined throughout history. The Swastika was a symbol of peace before Hitler adopted it.
Just because a symbol is used by someone else for something you morally object to, doesn't make the symbol a symbol of evil.
I was born and raised in the western suburbs of Rochester. I have no southern blood. As a matter of fact the O'Brien side of my family came here to the US on a horse from Canada. You don't need southern blood or ties to see that the Stars and Bars represent more than an attempt to keep slavery established.
Though slavery was a major contributor for the South's secession, they chose to leave when it was obvious that they Southern states had no power left to influence Washington. When Lincoln was elected, every Southern state voted against him and he still was able to get the electoral college majority. That is why they left. They were a powerless minority whose way of life was about to be abruptly changed.
Seems to me that is the same reason United States was formed. Seems to me that the Star and Bars meant Freedom to most since most were not slave owners.
Historical perspective should not be lost when discussing that symbol.
Peter; in any case, it is
Peter; in any case, it is still the battle flag for a country which declared war on the United States, and opened fire first.I try to imagine what life would be like if Lincoln hadn't staunchly preserved the Union and Andrew Johnson hadn't followed Lincoln's wishes to let the southern states back in. We wouldn't be the superpower we are and enjoy the prosperity we have. The effects of the events of the first half of the 20th century in Europe and Asia would have shaped the world much differently. That flag stands for just what you wrote: " I find the flag to be a symbol of pride, and freedom to do what one thinks best even if it is morally wrong to others." except I'd change the last to "wrong to ourselves". The Confederates had no vision and couldn't get into the 19th century, let alone realize that the Industrial age was upon them. They ought to praise Lincoln for saving their sorry butts.
Peter, I wonder what other
Peter,
I wonder what other 'powerless minority' may have had some strong opinions about the secession of southern states just before the Civil War.
Damn, it's just not coming to me, don't worry though, I'll think of it.
Dave look how long it took
Dave look how long it took for the US to develop a good government. They didn't worry much about it till the war handled. I am sure the Confederates would have come around eventually and had a government very similar to what they left and even they knew that slavery was not destined to last.
I could go on but none of that matters.
Chris, they out numbered their suppressors, all they had to do was rise up.
With what weapons Peter? Did
With what weapons Peter? Did they have guns?
With what knowledge of war and uprising? Were they educated? Could they organize?
With what future in mind? Should they attack the master only to watch him murder their wives and children? Would they have been allowed to go free after they took the plantation by force?
The best result a slave could hope to achieve after a rebellion would be to be killed swiftly, of course that wasn't likely to happen.
Your ignorance is offensive. Before you pretend to know anything about how simple it would have been for slaves to break their chains read up on Gabriel Prosser, Nat Turner and the German Coast Uprising. You should have learned about all of these events during your liberal public school education.
Slaves throughout history have not only been caged and controlled by their masters, but with the full force of military might. Every slave holding civilization since the dawn of man has used military force to either collect slaves or to enforce the institution of slavery once it has been established. It took equal military force in America to end the disgusting practice of owning another human being and to suggest that it was somehow the slave's fault for not improving his/her lot in life is a testament to your own twisted outlook.
Descendants of slaves in this country still feel the master's lash when people like you fly the confederate battle flag. It has been less than 150 years since Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation, a drop in the bucket of history. 100 years after that executive order was given, black children in America still weren't allowed to attend the same schools as their white counterparts because states were ignoring Brown v. Board of Education.
I'm tempted to continue on here, but I suppose it's not really worth the effort. People like Peter will never get it, and they don't have to. It's not illegal in America to be ignorant of reality.
Framing the mentality of a
Framing the mentality of a slave population would not only monopolize the bandwidth of this site, it would be a project of imagination- there is no parallel in our culture. Even the recent news item detailing the woman held sex-hostage by her Austrian father pales by comparison. She knew, on some level, that her situation was an aberration; the world outside her basement prison did not condone her mistreatment.
African slaves were brought to this country against their will, as commodities in a legal and culturally accepted business. They were bought, sold, inherited and gifted as merchandise. They were bred and treated like cattle. They had no income or property. For the most part they were uneducated. Their race- if not general appearance- was the equivalent of prison-issue. They had few opportunities to maintain a family unit- no less conspire. The north had no great desire to provide sanctuary for them; which in part explains why they tried to get to Canada. In any event- what did they know of the world beyond the fields they worked. They knew escaped slaves were hunted down, beaten and mutilated to discourage repeated flight.
Black populations held majority in only three southern states: Mississippi, Louisiana and South Carolina. They accounted for 40% of the population in the remainder of the south. The north's vision, administered via post-war reconstruction, was to form a southern culture of co-existence. That vision failed due to under-estimation of southern humiliation and resentment, inability (or disinterest) to suppress white retaliation on blacks and the general collapse of southern agriculture. The short-lived period of black civil advancement was reversed and the beginnings of black migration from the south began in the 1870s. Blacks first moved west (Kansas) with white homesteaders and from rural south to southern cities. Their routes tested the depths of white resentment. It was apparent that the north had not anticipated nor desired refugees from the collapse of the old south. Black servants and porters were a tolerated novelty; whose ranks were comprised of educated, time-tested blacks. (From the 1915 Hartford Courant: "Colored people in Hartford in the days of yore seemed to have played their part as factotums to the first families and in contributing to the comfort and convenience of the white folks generally.") It wasn't until World War I labor shortages that blacks were admitted to the northern labor pool.
Therein lies the paradox of slave mentality: the alienation of dependency on those who resent, suppress and retaliate. The blacks who refused to leave their (former) owners were not loyal; they were leery of experiencing the alternative.
"Descendants of slaves in
"Descendants of slaves in this country still feel the master's lash when people like you fly the confederate battle flag." I hope we all have this same passion for Israel as our country turns it's back on them. Their descendants must feel the lash of the same whip that forced them to make bricks for the Egyptians or when their descendants were herded into gas chambers by the Germans or as their greatest ally turns away as hostilities against them mount.
The poll results speak for
The poll results speak for itself on this site.
The vast majority do not think the old battle flag is racist. Seems most don't think about it at all.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on
Posted by Peter O'Brien on June 12, 2009 - 9:12am
I am close minded because I have had a lot of time to think on issues and have made up my mind about most of them.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on April 23, 2010 - 10:31pm
....they out numbered their suppressors, all they had to do was rise up.
Based on your opinion, Peter.
Chris and C.M, and others have made mincemeat out of that statement. But, they have to remember that your mind is made up and there isn't much said that will change it.
Jeff- while I have no reason
Jeff- while I have no reason to dislike the State of Israel, it is not our business to be their strong arm. We are not the world's police, and we need to remember that
John said "The poll results
John said "The poll results speak for itself on this site."
And I say that's a sad commentary.
If our history included older, white, mostly affluent, male oppression this would bring people together to form loosely organized groups of protesters that could gather and holler about the injustice. Oh, I forgot, we actually do have that group.
Poll the people who's ancestors bore the scars from the whips and chains -- it's their history. I don't think it's asking too much to show some deference to the 36 million African American descendants, and those of us white people that see that flag for what it represents -- bondage and oppression.
Jeff- which flag would one
Jeff- which flag would one fly to antagonize the Israelis? (Bigotry aside, there is no resemblance to the topic of discussion.)
Sans Exodus, what is left of the Jewish heritage?
Without appearing to condone the Holocaust, it must be recognized, if not for post-WW II Jewish DPs, there would be no Israel as we know it. The impetus for the Jewish state was European and American antisemitism vis-a-vis 15 million war-displaced people. Conveniently, Britain had a colony available for relocating Jews. By 1951 400,000 Jewish DPs had migrated from Western Europe to Israel- the former Palestine. In the same time frame 900,000 Jews from Middle Eastern countries fled to the same destination as Arabs succumbed to western-born antisemitism. Following Stalin's purges, 250,000 Jews emigrated from the USSR to Israel.
The back-turning occurred long before now. Adolph Eichmann commanded the Nazi Office of Emigration in Vienna- set up after German occupation. His role was to deport Austria's 180,000 Jews. In a year's time he had reduced the number to 60,000. Hundreds of thousands of Jews in Germany waited on open doors. President Roosevelt called together 32 nations to discuss Jewish emigration in July of 1938. No decision was made despite Germany's acknowledged intent.
Ultimately, the United States admitted about 100,000 prior to 1939 but failed to fill 400,000 quota slots. England accepted 80,000, Holland, 22,000, Belgium, about 13,000, Switzerland, 9,000, Argentina, 20,000, other Latin American countries, about 20,000. British-controlled Palestine admitted about 70,000 prior to 1941. Europe's Jewish population in 1933 was 11 million.
Interesting footnote: several Jewish refugees were interned in Oswego, NY. According to a documentary film, they all had to sign statements, agreeing to return to Europe at the conclusion of the war.
Lorie, You have really gone
Lorie,
You have really gone off on your own path about us.
This is Genesee County.Sad fact for you that the ethnic make up is what it is. You can go on and on about whips and chains, but that is not what the poll asked.
And again, the poll results show most people who voted don't care about that flag.
Interesting opinion you have of the people (male) around here. I wonder if your candidates this Fall will have the same opinion of us?
"You have really gone off on
"You have really gone off on your own path about us."
Did I really? In actuality the second paragraph in my comment was a generalization from the NY Times Poll done a few weeks ago stating that 18 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. It just so happens that the Confederate flag is prevalent at Tea Party events. Google it.
The two major parties in Genesee County both have a record of running candidates across the diversity spectrum, so don't go there with me. This discussion is about the Confederate flag, not about candidates.
Make of this what you will:
Make of this what you will:
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYfmShJe5MA]
Lorie, And it is not about
Lorie,
And it is not about the Tea Party either, a group that might hurt your candidates this year. It's about the flag.
But you are the one who made the statement, related to my comment on the local poll, about "older, white, mostly affluent, male oppression this would bring people together to form loosely organized groups of protesters that could gather and holler about the injustice. Oh, I forgot, we actually do have that group".
You didn't say that was only for your anti tea party view, and not the people who voted in the poll.
Will you agree that, based on the poll, most people around here don't care about that flag?
Howard, I also found this Tea
Howard, I also found this Tea Party interview interesting:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sUsBvkfQKUw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sUsBvkfQKUw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
That's a very interesting
That's a very interesting video - the questioner makes a very foolish assumption that the guy's complaints against social welfare program are based on race that the guy very smartly catches it and deflects it.
Who's the racist -- the guy who objects to welfare or the guy who assumes that anybody who talks about social programs is making a racially charged statement?
When I think chronic welfare recipients, I don't automatically think black -- in fact, I personally almost always picture a white family. So why is the questioner assuming this guy means black?
I don't know what to make the video I posted. It could be, as it purports, a Democrat posing as a racist. It could be a racist who just happened to buy a new shirt and hat. It could be a tea party guy posing as a Democrat who is posing as a racist.
But I will say I'm suspicious of the drum beat "they're all racist" of anti-tea party contingent because that contingent has an obvious political bias to discredit the tea party movement.
I bet there are racists who attend tea party rallies, but that doesn't mean the tea party movement is racist, nor does it, on a logical basis, invalidate the message of the tea party movement. I find the tendency to broad brush the entire tea party as racist really a smoke screen for not dealing with the political agenda of the tea party. Rather than argue the merits of the tea party complaints, opponents want to engage in ad hominem attacks on its members.
I'm not involved in either side, just observing.
BTW: Best way to embed a
BTW: Best way to embed a video in a comment:
[ video:YOUTUBE_URL ]
(no space in the brackets)
Then it won't bleed over.
The revelatory (pun intended)
The revelatory (pun intended) parts for myself: 1) when the protester more-or-less admits he didn't vote, and 2) same confesses to "bleeding off" (his phrase) the system while complaining about others doing likewise.
I'll use your suggestion per embedded video.
I initially intended to
I initially intended to mention those parts.
On one hand, as a veteran, you can argue he earned some government benefits (especially if a Vietnam Vet, especially more so if drafted); on the other, he is still drawing down revenue and adding to the deficit and doesn't apparently see the irony in that.
On voting, I consider it the right of every American not to vote. I don't think that makes one's opinions any less salient.
I don't disagree, Howard; a
I don't disagree, Howard; a protest vote is valid. But for a protest vote to be effective, it must be somehow registered. If he'd been forthright, admitting he didn't vote because none of the candidates represented his ideal- that explanation would have sufficed. On the contrary, he hemmed, hawed and appeared deceitful. Granted the guy is not a pro; still, humility and sincerity give amateurs an advantage on the credibility scale. This guy didn't take himself any more seriously than the blogger did.
One of the objections to electronic voting (aside from the CEO of the prime voting machine vendor pledging to do all he could to elect G. W. Bush) is it marginalizes a protest vote. Of those systems known to provide for write-in and null voting, the process has been described as "complicated." By null voting, a voter doesn't select any candidate, but his/her appearance to vote is recorded. The question remains as to whether write-ins or nulls are even counted. It has been stated that votes for Donald Duck and Goofy will not be recorded.
As I recall, a provision guaranteeing every voter the right to a paper ballot accompanied the transition to mechanical voting machines. That provision apparently no longer exists. There is an organization leading the fight for paper-verified voting and audits http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ ...Not the same- obviously.
California has re-asserted the right to paper ballot in 20 counties. Missouri is pursuing similar. In most cases a paper ballot must be applied for- largely for reasons of absentee or over-seas military ballot. Each state seems to have its own application process.
C.M., the guy knew it would
C.M., the guy knew it would look back to admit that he didn't vote and he didn't know how to answer the question. Either way, to me it's completely a non-issue. Whether he didn't vote because he didn't like the candidates, or wanted to not-vote as a protest or was just 100 percent apathetic at the time is immaterial to me. Either his ideas have merit regardless of who he is and what he does or his ideas don't have merit. Not voting, for whatever reason, does not invalidate anybody's right to speak.
What I'm really addressing is the common adage, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain." I just don't agree with that statement.
Chill, Howard. I'd be the
Chill, Howard. I'd be the last hombre to challenge anyone's first amendment rights.
I'm just saying.
I'm just saying.
While the freedom of
While the freedom of expression certainly carries weight for chosing not to vote, there is a point that should be made.
If you chose not to vote,then the decisions made by those who were elected to represent us should be treated with equal apathy or disinterest.
Complaints about those decisions, by those who chose not to vote, have little value.
Until we come up with a new system, the only way to voice our preferences is in the voting booth. Chosing not to participate in this process may be a freedom of expressiion, but hardly qualifies one to continue to complain about the decisions.
C.M. you 'chastise' me with
C.M. you 'chastise' me with this "Bigotry aside, there is no resemblance to the topic of discussion." in my reference to Israel (people oppressed by virtue of distinction) and yet you are off on the Tea Party, paper ballots, and voting rights and responsibilities.
There are plenty of ways to
There are plenty of ways to voice dissatisfaction that are equally as valid as the voting booth, especially in the era of digital community, but in the days of Thomas Paine, he didn't get to vote on his government -- all he had was a pen, and it was a pen that helped change the world.
I will defend the absolute right not to vote with great vigor.
It's called freedom.
And nothing, absolutely nothing, about not voting invalidates the thoughts and opinions of those who don't vote, for whatever reason they don't vote.
You may choose to ignore the non-voter, but that doesn't invalidate his opinions nor deprive him of his right to speak.
...and what of the chaos if
...and what of the chaos if everyone chose not to vote?
The first Amendment gives all
The first Amendment gives all people the freedom of expression. I don't recall reading any part of the first amendment that says all people have the freedom of expression if they participate in the election process.
Jeremiah Pedro
Thomas Paine came from an era
Thomas Paine came from an era when those who could influence by virtue of the pen were far more rare than today. In the digital society you mention, we are deluged with opinion and certainly that is one the protected freedoms as Americans. One can freely address concerns through debate, but should only reasonably expect change through the power of the elective process. Laying aside the influence of money through corporate, union, and lobby pressure voting is the last hope of actual influence the common man has.
Jeff, in the digital age, not
Jeff, in the digital age, not all voices are equal. Instapundit and Daily Kos have both grown to some degree of influence by establishing credibility through what is posted.
The opportunity exists for anybody to get their message widely heard.
Expressing ones view point and get it heard is potentially much more powerful today that any time human history, and far more potentially powerful than any single vote. A vote is just one vote. A voice that gets heard potentially influences many, many votes, or convinces a legislator, who's one vote represents many, to do something differently.
Bea, you're arguing from the extreme. It's just not realistic.
Posted by Howard Owens on
Posted by Howard Owens on April 26, 2010 - 7:57am
Bea, you're arguing from the extreme. It's just not realistic.
I agree it was from the extreme, but it was a thought that hit me while I was reading this. Not really arguing a point, but just an observation.
What would happen if everyone just decided to stay home on election day?
But it's just not going to
But it's just not going to happen.
There's always going to be a core of people who get involved.
If not, our society is going to have far worse problems to deal with than whether people vote.
Bea, imagine that. What a
Bea, imagine that. What a message it would send, if even a majority of voters, didn't vote on election days. This subject is all to familiar, and one I was rideculed for in the past. I was never a voter, until I was told by some commenters, that my opinions meant nothing because of it. I see a few "voters" have changed their tune on the subject, or maybe just in this thread.... In my opinion I should have stuck to my beliefs, and not registered. After all, its not the American Peoples votes that count anyway, we are powerless. My vote did absolutely NOTHING.
In the video above, with the White Trash, KKK, Nazi Clown. I am proud that the tea-partiers stood up to that Hate-Munger, and ran him off.
The Tea Party movement, is just what we need, to make Change. These people(in my opinion) are True Americans, that are Absolutely Fed Up with Government, and their Greedy, Shady ways. GO TEA PARTY!!!! DOWN with the KKK!!
Karen, Less than half the
Karen,
Less than half the eligible voters vote now, and that is part of the problem. They are too willing to let others vote, run for office, and do things. Then when it goes bad, they sit around and complain.