The Confederate Flag is Offensive!
I haven't posted anything in the blog the last week. Sorry guys. I had to go to Illinois for a few days and take care of some business. I'll get back to posting regularly again.While I was driving back from Illinois, with my new "Land of Lincoln" license plate, I noticed a large amount of confederate flags. The further south I went, the more I noticed.
At one stop on the way back, there was this one girl with shirt with a confederate flag on the back. Under the flag read the quote "If this offends you, you need a history lesson." I looked at her and said "If you find this offensive, you need a history lesson? Well, I find it offensive."
And, like clockwork, she said "well, you need a history lesson."
Of course she didn't know my background. I am a history major that not only took a Civil War course at the University of Utah, but have also independently studied the Civil War for the past ten years.
So, I asked her "who was the Vice President of the Confederacy"? Guess what...no answer. Well, no surprise there. I told her it was Alexander Stephens, and that she should maybe take a history lesson herself.
Simply, the Confederate flag is offensive. It represents slavery. Supporters say it represents states' rights. Well, if that is the case, why don't they fly the Alabama, Mississippi or North Carolina flag? If you are for states' rights, then fly your state's flag.
Really, it isn't about states' rights or southern pride. It is about racism. How many of these people who proudly wave the CSA flag have friends that are black? I doubt very few.
But I think we really need to put this debate into perspective. Lets say you were traveling southern Germany. You see a house that has a Nazi flag hanging on the front porch. When you see that flag, what do you think? Do you think...'hey, this guy hates Jews', or...'oh, that guy supports German heritage'? Pretty easy answer.
The basic point is that the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. The Confederacy was born from idea of slavery. It wasn't about states' rights. At that time in history, most states ran their affairs themselves, and there was very little federal government. Shelby Foote said before the Civil War, people would refer to the U.S. as "The United States are", meaning a collection of states. After the Civil War, people would refer to the U.S. as "The United States is", meaning a collective whole. That shows that before the Civil War states' rights were alive and well.
The Confederacy basically is a sign of racism.
If someone can convince me otherwise, I'm all ears!
posted by Zizou 06 @ 2:12 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Well I am certain I cannot convince you. Indeed the articles of secession in most of the Confederate states specifically mentioned slavery. However, the issue is much more complicated than just that. Slavery was an embedded economic system with no easy exit strategy, except the option of destroying the economy which is really not an easy or acceptable solution.
As a history major you should be familiar with the viable theories that slavery itself was an institution destined to fade away. Given 20 or thirty more years it is very likely that all of the slaves in the south would have been free and essentially working for wages. Considering that free blacks in the south had many more rights that blacks from 1865-1965 the trade of no war and 20-30 more years of slavery seem pretty appealing.
You simply cannot say that the battle flag equals slavery. When I was in Bosnia I saw the battle flag flying on Serbia military vehicles. I have seen pictures from the 1970’s during the African bush wars following independence with various separatist groups (all black) flying the battle flag. To many people around the world the flag represents a struggle for freedom against an oppressor.
Sure the klu kluxers used the flag, so too do folks that misunderstand other cultures and grew up learning to fear and hate. But the same cannot be said of everyone that displays the flag.
It is also incorrect to dismiss the notion that the flag represents to many people the idea of states rights. You are correct, the best emblem to use for that purpose is the state flag, but the battle flag has a significance as well. It was the carried into battle in a war fought over states’ rights/ And yes, I understand full well that the right the states wanted to protect was their ability to figure out how to deal with slavery on their own.
The point most folks miss is that the South was not solid for keeping slavery in place forever. Nobody had yet come up with a solution, simple economics would soon provide a solution for them if they had been left to figure it out on their own.
True, the institution was fading, and maybe breaking away from the Union was a way to preserve it.
And I understand that there are other issues that came up. And, as you said, most were economic. For example, when they decided to create the Continental Railroad, they made it east-west instead of north-south, which hurt the south.
Still, one of the reasons they kept slavery was because they could not keep up with the North when it came to industrial development.
The flag to me is offensive. The war was centered around the white man's hate for the black. That is why it took 100 years for blacks to be given rights in the south again. True, given 20 or 30 years more slaves might have been free in the south (though I highly doubt that because of the statement in my last sentence), but that is THIRTY years. They should have had freedom thirty years prior. Now we are talking 60 years, and that is unaccpetable.
I understand where you come from as well with the battle flag. But in the examples you use (Bosnia and Africa), those countries were either in a conflict or just out of one. We are talking about 140 years later in this conflict. I hope that some minds would progress by then.
Still, when all is said and done, the Civil War must be the only war on the face of the planet where the history was written by the losers and not the winners. Most of the scholars that have written about the war have been from the south. Therefore, we rarely hear about not only the injustices of the slave, but also the treatment of Union troops in Andersonville, Georgia.
Simply put, it isn't the north's problem that the south hasn't been able to advance as far in technology since the Civil War. Call it technological-geographical Darwinism if you wish, but it is true.
But still, after my response, the question still stands and the question hasn't been answered. What does the flag stand for? Does it stand for the failed economic policy of the CSA from 1861 to 1865? Hell, if that is the case, then I will hang up my "Hoover for President" banner and wave it proudly. What redeeming fact does that flag carry. Still, I see none. The author of the post has failed to explain why the flag is waved proudly, which is the answer I am trying to get.
Ok, I shall provide the answer that you seek without debating the causes of the War or who wrote the history.
The flag represents to some a spirit that began in a people long before they settled in the backcountry and mountains of the South. I am not talking about the planter class, they were primarily of English stock. I am referring to those folks that worked single family farms in the areas less prone to plantation operations. These folks came primarily from Scots-Irish stock. These are the Ulster Scots, they lowland Scots that bore the brunt of invasion, tyranny and war since the days of Rome. They faced Hadrians wall, they fought the Saxons and the English. Whenever anyone wanted to invade and dominate what is now Scotland it was the homes and communities of these people that were torched first.
They lived for a time in Ireland but did not escape the persecution there. They clung to their Presbyterian religion and were loved by neither the Anglicans nor Catholics. They came to the North American continent, poor but free and willing to take orders from no man in power far away.
A long history of warfare, oppression and tyranny made these people bond to family, home, hearth and community. Authority is something they did not and still do not respect far removed from these tangible realities.
You say that the flag represents hatred and oppression of the black man. Certainly it has been used in that way. So has the Christian cross, the US flag and numerous other symbols. Symbols do not hate, people do. It is impossible to accurately paint everyone that waves this flag or wears a shirt with a depiction of it as a racist. To some it means something else.
To some it means we do not care for a distant authority that does not represent our values or morals. It means we do not care for a system of government that encourages mega-corporations in favor of small business. It means we do not want to be incorporated into an empire ( a new type of empire to be sure) but an empire all the same. One built on greed, dishonesty, disdain for culture and diversity. It means we do not think any man or government has the right to tell another man or country how to manage their affairs.
To many, in many places the flag means freedom not hatred or oppression. The bulk of the folks that fought and died under the flag did not own slaves. They fought to keep a foreign government from telling them what to do. Many that fly the flag today feel exactly the same way. They see themselves as a separate and distinct people with a history much longer than that of the Federal government. The flag simply means to them, “leave us alone”.
BTW, thanks for your reasoned response. I understand your position and really have no illusions of actually changing your mind. But I do enjoy a reasoned and kind discussion even if we ultimately disagree. Thank you for that.
Well, I am an Irish Catholic and an Irish historian. I am also a supporter of Sinn Fein.
Ulster Scots did not deal with invasion in Ireland. Yes, they might have when they were in Scotland (and they did), but when they went to Ulster, they were the oppressors (along with the English). The current leader of the failed Assembly in Northern Ireland, Ian Paisley, is a proud Scots-Irish Presbyterian. And still, they discriminate against the Catholics, going as far as calling the Pope the anti-Christ.
Scots-Irish might not have had it great, but they never had it as bad as the Catholics. Starting with William of Orange, to Oliver Cromwell all the way down to Ian Paisley today, the Ulster Protestant has always oppressed the Catholic. The stats show it all. Unemployment in Catholic cities in Ulster are in double digits, while Protestant unemployment figures are in the very low single digits. And there are many other stats as well that show mass discrimination.
As far as your comment on 'mega-corporations' and the greed of big business, I am 100% in agreement with you. But I think that you would be the only one that would use that reason to fly the CSA battle flag. I highly doubt that globalization is the reason that someone in Belmont, MS (yep, half of my family is from there) has that flag on the front porch.
Still, if that was the reason that people flew the CSA battle flag, more southerners would vote Democrat again and vote against free trade than vote Republican. See, social issues have taken over the south instead of economic issues. The Democratic Party has always been the ones that opposed free-trade and sending jobs and money to India and Communist China. I wish more southerners would understand that it is more in their vital interests to vote Democrat because it means economic security and, yes, the 'leave us alone' attitude. I am quite an isolationist myself, and that is why I am not a Republican or George Bush fan. I think they have done more harm by globalizing us economically and militarily.
Also, your statement 'symbols do not have, people do'. I agree with that as well. But the problem is that this symbol (the flag) has been associated with hate for so long. Again, like I said about Germany, if you saw a Nazi flag on a house today, would you assume that person was flying to 'show he was a proud German'? I doubt it.
You seem to be true to your convictions with this, and I respect that. But I think Rodney King is kind of right..."Why can't we all just get along"? Why does the South need to be a 'rebel' or 'seperate' from the rest of the nation? Why can't we all work together for the common good of all?
And finally, I totally enjoy this discussion as well. It is great to have someone that actually 'knows' sometime, and just doesn't throw insults. I like that!
Well Dave,
Good discussion we have here. I side with El Cid and I support that flag as well; it reflects the "leave us alone" zeitgeist present in the South. In addition, I'll give a theological intepretation . My degrees are in theology not history--I'm prepared to be corrected. I am ine part Scots-Irish and 3 part Brit. The Southern Cross is pattered after the St. Andrews cross of Scotland. In addition to the cultural and economic concerns of the War, the South has always been theologically more conservative than the North. Folk like to cite many fo the Founders with Deism; actually it was homegrown Unitarianism that had the hold on the likes of Franklin and Jefferson, and educators like Horace Mann. Unitarianism and pragmatism had already hit Harvard, Yale and the rest of New England. The South didn't want such apostasy coming down home. The South was as El Cid observed, populated by a sea of Scots Presbyterians. Since you know your history of the region, (sorry for this) one of the reasons the Ulsters left home was because the Church of Scotland allowed Catholics to hgold public office. if you donlt know church history, that may sound "prejudice" to you, but considering the times, i.e. the "Second Reformation" in Scotland, the act of allowing non-presbyterians anything was seen as apostasy from the national covenant. So they came here; to protest such civil and theological disobedience by the North, the influence of the Scots was such that the Battle flag looks like it does. There will always be hostility in Scotland and Ireland between Presbyterians and Catholics; it is a theological battle similar to the Jews versus Muslims in the Middle East. There will always be hostility between Presbyterians and Catholics because it is a theological battle, that for you may seem like much-a-do-about-nothing (if you're theologically liberal, the likes of which I ain't). I am an Associate Reformed Presbyterian; a descentdant of the folk that left Ulster for doing what they did. if you understand Scotland's National Covenant (which is all but lost now), you'kk understand their hostility. Am I hostile in America against Catholics? No, I'm not; for our national covenant (which ends with the expression, "in the year of our Lord") in our Christian Nation does not have a "religious test" (read "denominational test") for public office--we are denominationally neutral (not "religiouslu" neutral i.e. atheist, secular, hindu, buddhist, etc.). While the Constitution was written by strong federalists, the South very much has the antifederalist spirit still here and that spirit of antifederalism, i.e. contra the strong central government which Lincoln imposed on the South (even when former president Buchanan was ready to grant secession to the South), is represented by that flag, which is a Christian Flag, patterned after the Scottish St. Andrews Cross (St. Andrew brought the CATHOLIC Christian faith to the region, but William Hamilton made Scotland protestant and John Knox made her Presbyterian). Hence, slavery was a side issue that Lincoln made a central issue--to suppress the antifederalism in our Motherland. The Flag for us says everything about who we are as a Christian people, that resent a big tyrannical government (such as the Apostate Church and Government of Scotland that persecuted the Covenanters [17th century] and the Secession [18th century] presbyterys). Anyhoo, you get the point :)
It's a shame there's no spell check . . .
Ok, your point on the Ulster Scots in Ireland is well taken. I would probably equate what happened in Ireland with the same justifications that Jim Crow emerged after Reconstruction. A people oppressed and disenfranchised sometimes take out their angst against the wrong folks. The hatred between the Ulster Scots and the Irish Catholics was in large part a machination of the English. Enemies of enemies and all that. It was easier in the English mind to move problem people to one place and allow them to fight it out. If the Ulster Scots offended and conflicted with the Catholics it was ultimately good for the English.
It was exactly the same in the South during Reconstruction. Prior to the War, free blacks had a fair degree of rights. They could own property, some even had slaves. There are numerous examples of free black folks being included in marriage and society announcements in papers across the South. Things were not perfect, but the situation for free blacks was far better before 1861 than it was after 1875.
Enter the occupation army of the Union and Reconstruction. The planter class was disenfranchised. The traditional political leaders were gone. The state houses, courts and governor mansions in some cases were occupied by puppet governments filled with black folks. Now nobody can claim that the rise from slave to legislator at a drop of a hat was intended as anything other than a control measure by the occupation forces. There was no possible way the intent was good government, the intent was control and retribution. There are numerous examples of state legislators during this period that could nto even read.
The result was animosity and hatred. A deep hatred that did not exist before. Instead of turning the full force of the hatred toward the Union and Federal troops the disenfranchised Southerners turned it toward black people. Wrong though this may have been it is human nature to hate that which is close and obvious. People often misplace their hatred. When whites again regained control of the government the very first thing to appear was Jim Crow, a reaction to the humiliation of reconstruction and a way to get back at those puppets that the Union used during that period.
Southerners, black and white, lost out in the war and suffered because of it. We were all duped, used, manipulated and oppressed. My argument that black people would have been better off if slavery had ended naturally still stands in my mind. Thirty additional years of slavery followed by a freedom that included more rights and less animosity is a far better solution. The 100 years of Jim Crow and segregation based entirely upon the manipulations of the occupation army is the greater of those two evils.
I will also concede that most Southerners do not understand the real issues at hand in terms of what they are really opposed to. They just have a feeling in their gut that something is not right. This feeling has come to them, passed down across the generations. They vote Republican by the millions because they have not been educated enough to understand what is wrong with the Republican agenda. They only know that the Democratic party left them thirty years ago and the Republican party has promised ever since to represent them; neither party really cares for the things they feel in their gut. The fact they cannot properly articulate what they feel and believe at their core is the greatest weakness of the 21st Century Southern Man.
So, yes, most cannot say they are opposed to illegal war (they are confused by misplaced feelings of patriotism), they say they disdain mega-corporations (while they drive to Wal-Mart and let Bob’s Seed and Feed fail) and they claim they hate federal government intrusion but they clamor for federal assistance when a hurricane strikes. These are issues of education, if Southerners are ever to be true to their core they must relearn what being true to their core means.
So perhaps in one sense you are correct, if a man (or woman) cannot say with specificity why they display the flag and what it means then they probably ought not fly it at all. Flying it for the sake of heritage alone makes no sense. A person either believes that the principle of self-determination it was raised for still stands and applies today or the flag should be relegated to the museum.
Thank you again.
Yes, Clarence...blogger comments make us all look like idiots (me specifically) at times. You type away and hit send and bam...10 typos and mispellings and no way to edit. At least I believe most of us read intent and content. I must remember to slow down a bit and use Word.....
I'm interested in anything to do with the Civil War and with Cassville, Georgia. Your blog is interesting.
Regards,
A Cassville Heritage Association member, Cassville, Georgia
Allatoona Pass
Hello sexy girls | sexy webcam videos | live chat xanax cheap xanax buy xanax online phentermine buy phentermine online phentermine cheap tramadol buy tramadol online tramadol cheap levaquin buy levaquin online levaquin cheap norvasc buy sex online
babe online casino online casino online roulette online blackjack online poker online phentermine online xanax xanax buy phentermine phentermine buy phentermine cheap | live chat
Enjoy
Hi all!
That was useful info...thanks and Welcome to live chat hot babe chat & Movie Pages porno
Enjoy
Hi all!
Adult live chat Good job.....thanks.....Must be a reason to find friends in your area! Try this page....
G'night
Hi. Alone on Valentine's Day? Adult Live Chat & movie pages Try to find partner in your area!
for fun
Hi. Use this search engine for best result: BD search Find all you need in your area!
Enjoy
Hello. Use these helpful search engines TFO search & sex and try to find all you need in your area!
Enjoy
Hi
It's a little sex for health...
Welcome to sexy teens | movie pages | picture pages | webcam movie | adult friend finder.
Here pages devoted to health are published.
It is the large search robot, which can help to receive this or that information and as to get this or that goods! Tramadol | Phentermine | Buy Xanax | Xanax and all that is necessary.
G'night
Post a Comment
<< Home