(01-06-2015 10:56 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  You made a lot of good points. I support it in honor of my family that stood strong, fought and died in that war. I wasn't around for Jim Crow or segregation so that has no play in why I support and love the South. It definitely has nothing to do with slaves. My love for the 1800's is due to the small population in America (300 million less than we have now) and the absence of technology outside of medical tech.

I'm sure you'll understand if I don't share your affinity for 1800's America. And as long as you understand that the amount of pride you have for this particular symbol engenders feelings of shame, division and marginalization for blacks, then that is the best I can hope for. Because as HoD stated earlier, both positions are true based upon the observer.

(01-06-2015 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I don't differentiate because at the end of the day we are talking about flags and the meaning behind them what makes a flag so particularly offensive. doesn't matter whatever good LSU may perceive to come out of the flag, it does nothing to outweigh all the offensive, racially insensitive associations that flag has. It's not a case of the good can outweigh the bad, it's a case of as long as the "bad" is there, the flag becomes offensive.

This probably isn't the best position to take considering the sanctioned genocide that took place under that banner of the Stars and Stripes. And you're right regarding the nickname in that the Confederate Battle Flag is not the Stars and Bars.

(01-06-2015 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:05 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  If you go and read the Declaration of Secession for many of CSA states, within the first paragraph you will find a phase that in effect says that the reason the South are leaving the Union is because they side with the institution of slavery.

which is why I get so pissy with LSU when he says the general consensus by historians is not that the south left because of slavery. You can google those documents to easily find their texts. IIRC the number is like 88 references to slavery, 4 for states rights. then there are the personal writings/speeches of CSA leaders that reaffirm the notion that they on the basis of slavery. it's pure revisionist history to say otherwise

I guess I haven't seen or read these historians that state that the creation of the CSA was for any other reason than to preserve the economic vitality of the region via slavery. As evidenced by the sharecropping era, paying people to pick cotton or tobacco isn't a financially sustainable proposition.

The real tragedy is that with a more foresight and northern collaboration, the whole issue could have been avoided. You and I have discussed how the Cotton Gin essentially prolonged slavery. But the real tragedy is that Eli Whitney's invention, if properly paired with a team of horses and a Fulton Steam Engine, would have created the first combine and eliminated much of the South's dependency on slaves.

(01-06-2015 02:07 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 10:56 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  You made a lot of good points. I support it in honor of my family that stood strong, fought and died in that war. I wasn't around for Jim Crow or segregation so that has no play in why I support and love the South. It definitely has nothing to do with slaves. My love for the 1800's is due to the small population in America (300 million less than we have now) and the absence of technology outside of medical tech.

I'm sure you'll understand if I don't share your affinity for 1800's America. And as long as you understand that the amount of pride you have for this particular symbol engenders feelings of shame, division and marginalization for blacks, then that is the best I can hope for. Because as HoD stated earlier, both positions are true based upon the observer.

We all have our opinions. FWIW, one of my other favorite eras that I'd love to have lived in is the Medieval Era for the same reasons.

(01-06-2015 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I don't differentiate because at the end of the day we are talking about flags and the meaning behind them what makes a flag so particularly offensive. doesn't matter whatever good LSU may perceive to come out of the flag, it does nothing to outweigh all the offensive, racially insensitive associations that flag has. It's not a case of the good can outweigh the bad, it's a case of as long as the "bad" is there, the flag becomes offensive.

This probably isn't the best position to take considering the sanctioned genocide that took place under that banner of the Stars and Stripes. And you're right regarding the nickname in that the Confederate Battle Flag is not the Stars and Bars.

What sanctioned genocide are you speaking of?

(12-30-2014 01:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Nobody should be mad about slavery nowadays (under normal circumstances), but the story did not end with slavery. Hell, if the story had just ended after the Civil War, we'd be fine. Remember, for a period black people and white people were equal under the law. We had black congressmen and state politicians in the south. But the story continued and we put ourselves about 100 years behind where we should've been.

Were????? Had?????



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Af...oliticians

(01-06-2015 02:14 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 02:07 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 10:56 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  You made a lot of good points. I support it in honor of my family that stood strong, fought and died in that war. I wasn't around for Jim Crow or segregation so that has no play in why I support and love the South. It definitely has nothing to do with slaves. My love for the 1800's is due to the small population in America (300 million less than we have now) and the absence of technology outside of medical tech.

I'm sure you'll understand if I don't share your affinity for 1800's America. And as long as you understand that the amount of pride you have for this particular symbol engenders feelings of shame, division and marginalization for blacks, then that is the best I can hope for. Because as HoD stated earlier, both positions are true based upon the observer.

We all have our opinions. FWIW, one of my other favorite eras that I'd love to have lived in is the Medieval Era for the same reasons.

(01-06-2015 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I don't differentiate because at the end of the day we are talking about flags and the meaning behind them what makes a flag so particularly offensive. doesn't matter whatever good LSU may perceive to come out of the flag, it does nothing to outweigh all the offensive, racially insensitive associations that flag has. It's not a case of the good can outweigh the bad, it's a case of as long as the "bad" is there, the flag becomes offensive.

This probably isn't the best position to take considering the sanctioned genocide that took place under that banner of the Stars and Stripes. And you're right regarding the nickname in that the Confederate Battle Flag is not the Stars and Bars.

What sanctioned genocide are you speaking of?

The Indian Removal Act which was in essence America's version of the Bataan Death March.

(12-31-2014 01:26 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 10:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 08:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 08:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Slavery was one thing but the United States compounded the problem by making it racial.

Mexico had black slaves.

Fit? You gonna respond?

Mexico never even had slavery let alone black slaves.

Oy vey.... some history teacher you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Mexican

Quote:an ethnic group made up of recent immigrants of African descent to Mexico and the descendants of slaves,[2] such as in the communities of the Costa Chica of Oaxaca and Guerrero, Veracruz and in some cities in northern Mexico.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/...1472.shtml

Quote:Colonial Mexico had the highest numbers of African slaves. Of the over one million casualties during the Mexican war of independence, most of them were Afro-Mexicans.

http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/666-s...-in-mexico
http://www.mexonline.com/history-blacks.htm

So this whole thing has turned into an argument over the level of moral culpability one should share based on how severely injured or insulted one is based on what occurred to a select group at a given period in time.

That's why these arguments never go anywhere.

(01-06-2015 02:23 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The Indian Removal Act which was in essence America's version of the Bataan Death March.

My bad, Van... I misread and thought you wrote Stars and Bars... I apologize brother.

(01-06-2015 02:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So this whole thing has turned into an argument over the level of moral culpability one should share based on how severely injured or insulted one is based on what occurred to a select group at a given period in time.

That's why these arguments never go anywhere.

Pretty much, all because I have soldiers dancing with women at a Confederate Ball in my sig that Robert never would have known was Confederate had it not had the flag in it. Then he said I was a racist white supremest.

(01-06-2015 02:45 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 02:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So this whole thing has turned into an argument over the level of moral culpability one should share based on how severely injured or insulted one is based on what occurred to a select group at a given period in time.

That's why these arguments never go anywhere.

Pretty much, all because I have soldiers dancing with women at a Confederate Ball in my sig that Robert never would have known was Confederate had it not had the flag in it. Then he said I was a racist white supremest.

Dude, I wouldn't pay any attention to Robert.

He's a loser.

(01-06-2015 02:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So this whole thing has turned into an argument over the level of moral culpability one should share based on how severely injured or insulted one is based on what occurred to a select group at a given period in time.

That's why these arguments never go anywhere.

I disagree that they never go anywhere. These are the types of conversations that led me to my current position on the subject. While the logic is somewhat tortured, for me its important to find a way to deal with the people I come in contact with and understand where they are coming from. For most of my life I've been the token black guy and what I've discovered is that a lot of people have questions that they would like answered without being castigated for asking them. People want share their position and see what the alternate perspective consists of. If we aren't willing to share in such dialogue, regardless of whether or not someones opinion is changed, then those that try to fan the embers of racism into full blown flames will succeed.

(01-06-2015 03:08 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 02:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So this whole thing has turned into an argument over the level of moral culpability one should share based on how severely injured or insulted one is based on what occurred to a select group at a given period in time.

That's why these arguments never go anywhere.

I disagree that they never go anywhere. These are the types of conversations that led me to my current position on the subject. While the logic is somewhat tortured, for me its important to find a way to deal with the people I come in contact with and understand where they are coming from. For most of my life I've been the token black guy and what I've discovered is that a lot of people have questions that they would like answered without being castigated for asking them. People want share their position and see what the alternate perspective consists of. If we aren't willing to share in such dialogue, regardless of whether or not someones opinion is changed, then those that try to fan the embers of racism into full blown flames will succeed.

All due respect, not everyone discusses like you do Van. You actually put thought and logic in your discussion. We have a few here that prefer to insult, stick their fingers in their ear, and not carry on a sensible conversation afterward.

BTW.. This is the Stars and Bars..

(01-06-2015 03:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 02:45 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 02:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So this whole thing has turned into an argument over the level of moral culpability one should share based on how severely injured or insulted one is based on what occurred to a select group at a given period in time.

That's why these arguments never go anywhere.

Pretty much, all because I have soldiers dancing with women at a Confederate Ball in my sig that Robert never would have known was Confederate had it not had the flag in it. Then he said I was a racist white supremest.

Dude, I wouldn't pay any attention to Robert.

He's a loser.

I don't, but that's what started the flame war.

True that

Robert and John are made because we have something they won't have LSU.. Southern charm..

(01-06-2015 03:30 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Robert and John are made because we have something they won't have LSU.. Southern charm..

It's envy...

(01-06-2015 02:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 01:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Nobody should be mad about slavery nowadays (under normal circumstances), but the story did not end with slavery. Hell, if the story had just ended after the Civil War, we'd be fine. Remember, for a period black people and white people were equal under the law. We had black congressmen and state politicians in the south. But the story continued and we put ourselves about 100 years behind where we should've been.

Were????? Had?????



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Af...oliticians

I don't think people get what I mean by that. I also can't think of a better way to word it, which is unfortunate.