Do you consider the Confederate flag to be racist

[Pandeeria]

You seem to ignore that fact that not everyone like that is a Liberal.

You're generalizing. Stop it.

But how to explain that people in this thread are talking only about black slaves?

No one said they were talking about black slaves. No one probably even implied it.

[-The West Coast-]

There is no law currently that says this to be true, so it's not true. You can't use this argument to destroy mine, because it's illogical.

Irrelevant. I've already told you, you don't have permission to post in this thread, so you need to stop.

'Slavery' is an institution that is imposed from the outside - and I am imposing it on you - which you have accepted as a valid paradigm.

Therefore, you have no right to self-expression because you're not a person, so hush now.

No you haven't imposed anything, you've simply applied semantics to this argument, dulling it to the point of someone with a mental handicap. You haven't added anything pertinent to this discussion so I would suggest you hush now and leave the talks to the big boys.

[Vettrera]

According to him it is.
Yet according to him the south didn't commit treason, yet it met the exact definition.

He could've just said "slaves are treated like property" and there wouldn't have been an issue.

He's also arguing that it's just

[Divair2]

You seem to ignore that fact that not everyone like that is a Liberal.

You're generalizing. Stop it.

But how to explain that people in this thread are talking only about black slaves?

Who said only African slaves are being discussed?

[Grave_n_idle]

Irrelevant. I've already told you, you don't have permission to post in this thread, so you need to stop.

'Slavery' is an institution that is imposed from the outside - and I am imposing it on you - which you have accepted as a valid paradigm.

Therefore, you have no right to self-expression because you're not a person, so hush now.

No you haven't imposed anything...

By your own claims, if someone is CALLED a slave, they are no longer a person. You have no right to speak, because I'm claiming you as my slave. Thus you have no right to expression.

So you either need to stop posting, or admit that your earlier post was bullshit. And let's face it, we BOTH know it was bullshit.

[Westerheim]

I'm talking about slaves. Not African slaves, Asian slaves, Latino slaves. Slaves. I make no ethnic distinction.

[Free United States]

Let's take a look at all the places where I "claim" that the south is "universally friendly."

If the claim is that the south is friendly, and you're objecting to me saying that it ISN'T that way for everyone...

Isn't that the same as you saying it IS universally friendly?

This is actually a shocking breakthrough. Our own Grave_n_idle is the objective arbitrator of what is and isn't "awesome!"

Actually, if you read the thread, you'll notice that I've referred to things like the idea that google searching would probably support the claim that the south is more racist than the north, or posted a link to a news story about Georgia racism.

I'm not claiming to be the objective arbitrator - I'm claiming to have direct experience, the weight of popular support, AND documentary proof that the south isn't that awesome.

Popular support doesn't make it right. And I have also claimed direct experience. And I also have documentary proof that the North isn't that awesome either.

"...blacks soon learned that they were last hired and first fired. The housing available to them was run-down and overcrowded; Chicago had not yet replaced many of its old frame houses with brick and stone tenement buildings. The South Side black belt was a strip of one- and two-story frame dwellings, many of them unpainted and lacking the most rudimentary sanitary and heating facilities..."

Palmer, Robert. Deep Blues: A Musical and Cultural History, from the Mississippi Delta to Chicago's south Side to the World. Penguin Books, New York: 1981. p. 139.

[Vettrera]

Irrelevant. I've already told you, you don't have permission topost in this thread, so you need to stop.

'Slavery' is an institution that is imposed from the outside - and I am imposing it on you - which you have accepted as a valid paradigm.

Therefore, you have no right to self-expression because you're not a person, so hush now.

No you haven't imposed anything, you've simply applied semantics to this argument, dulling it to the point of someone with a mental handicap. You haven't added anything pertinent to this discussion so I would suggest you hush now and leave the talks to the big boys.

You're a slave, by definition "He's" one of the big boys not you. And I wouldn't go around trying to give orders to your slaver.

[Pandeeria]

No you haven't imposed anything, you've simply applied semantics to this argument, dulling it to the point of someone with a mental handicap. You haven't added anything pertinent to this discussion so I would suggest you hush now and leave the talks to the big boys.

You're a slave, by definition "He's" one of the big boys not you. And I wouldn't go around trying to give orders to your slaver.

Now Grave just has to yell that his rights were infringed, and he can try to break away from the US, and it would be the civil war all over again.

[Tekania]

Oh well, is generally pick a government that's against slavery then for it.

Which is why the CSA spun it to "states rights" and "rights of the people" to appeal to larger foreign interests who weren't too keen on slavery. It surprisingly worked until Lincoln took the surprise step with the Emancipation [effectively saying the war was about slavery attempting to destroy the Union]. As with history it would be all downhill for the CSA.

Yes, the whole thing was destined to fail, rallying around the import of a economic aspect which the average didn't have direct benefit in for the support of the economic minority. It's much like when modern "Patriots" rallying around support for 1%'ers. The average dirt poor farmer with no slaves was at an economic disadvantage to the massive estate farms swaying southern politics of the period..... economically ransacking them and then using propaganda to rally them to spill blood for them as well.

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

There appears to be a generally biased view of the Southern Secession in this thread. I wish to bring to you all the facts, as they are, unbiased. In this, I shall not choose sides. I shall not say "We are right, you are wrong", because that's not how war works. It shall be largely from the viewpoint of the South, though it nonetheless explains what happened in the truth, and not what happened according to the side. History is written by the victors, but it made without bias.

For the South at the time, their entire economy was driven by slavery. Although this was not a major contributing factor to the war initially, as had been quoted by Lincoln himself, it was important economically. Although slavery is a horrible, miserable practice which should never be practiced, the Southerners needed it to keep up their economy. Bear in mind that the majority of whites in the South at the time were too poor to own slaves to begin with, and yet enlisted for the reasons to be stated.

The slavery debate itself did spark a rivalry which would contribute to the war. The Slavery Debate led to several skirmishes, both metaphorically and literally, within the US about what rights were granted to whom. Rather than slave rights, the real issue was in the concept of States' Rights. States' Rights, in essence, states that the provincial-level governors, those who govern the states, should be given a right to decline or accept certain laws as part of their legal system. This concept was widely popular throughout the South, and generally ignored or despised in the North.

At the same time, the North had a much more industrial economy and a significantly more urban environment. This is true, especially in comparison to the South, whose economy was mostly based on agricultural exports. Due to this difference, there was sure to be some conflicting interests. Tariffs raised in the South had raised secessionist sentiment previously, and even caused a minor internal crisis. The continuation of the tariffs had been instated, in part, to encourage the South to do more in-trading with the North. This conflicted with the Southern interest, whose economical might was based mostly in exporting to Europe.

As well as the other contributors, political parties played their own role. While the North was mostly comprised of Republicans, the South had been largely in favor of the Democratic party. This simple political divide often brought fights to governmental meetings, and blew up certain debates past their proportional size. This tendency continues between the two parties, and even today they fight, though with less cane-slaps. The Anarcho-liberal Southerners simply did not like the Republican North.

Each region also held an independent culture of the other. The 'Yankee' and 'Dixie' cultures held great contrasts and opposite extremes, ultimately resulting in only yet another reason of disagreement.

These are the major factors contributing to a violent, bloody, brutal war. While the South had experienced leaders and hardened soldiers, the North was the industrial powerhouse of the era, and so it really became a quality vs. quantity fight. The war took more American lives than all other wars which the United States had participated in combined. Nobody in the war was really right in what they did, barely any of it could even be considered justified, but the North wound up victorious and ushered a new age of the country.

For the North, this ends up as rejoicing, unity, nationalism, and wealth. For the South, it was known as Reconstruction. In a way, their predictions had been right. Many African-Americans suddenly found themselves homeless and starving, though aided by some organizations created to assist them. The Southern economy was devastated, with many of their largest and most important cities having been burned down without evacuation. This detail is important to show how brutal the war had become, that major cities would smolder atop the corpses of the civilians within. With a devastated economy, an increasing population, and a destructed government, the South would take a few decades to rebuild itself.

Ultimately, it was no individual cause. No side held the entire fault. This bloody disaster was the result of a chain reaction of several events and causes, and I hope everyone here has learned something from this. Good day to you all, North or South, and have a wonderful life.

[-The West Coast-]

No you haven't imposed anything, you've simply applied semantics to this argument, dulling it to the point of someone with a mental handicap. You haven't added anything pertinent to this discussion so I would suggest you hush now and leave the talks to the big boys.

You're a slave, by definition "He's" one of the big boys not you. And I wouldn't go around trying to give orders to your slaver.

You thought, though.

[Benuty]

Which is why the CSA spun it to "states rights" and "rights of the people" to appeal to larger foreign interests who weren't too keen on slavery. It surprisingly worked until Lincoln took the surprise step with the Emancipation [effectively saying the war was about slavery attempting to destroy the Union]. As with history it would be all downhill for the CSA.

Good riddance to slavery and the confederacy. The leaders should (and probably were) harshly and justly punished.

In fairness while the war was about slavery the reasons many of the former government ministers and generals was not. State loyalty, Family ties, spousal choices, future of their children, and various other reasons fueled why so many people joined the secession movement and went for the CSA as such.

[Seperates]

There appears to be a generally biased view of the Southern Secession in this thread. I wish to bring to you all the facts, as they are, unbiased. In this, I shall not choose sides. I shall not say "We are right, you are wrong", because that's not how war works. It shall be largely from the viewpoint of the South, though it nonetheless explains what happened in the truth, and not what happened according to the side. History is written by the victors, but it made without bias.

For the South at the time, their entire economy was driven by slavery. Although this was not a major contributing factor to the war initially, as had been quoted by Lincoln himself, it was important economically. Although slavery is a horrible, miserable practice which should never be practiced, the Southerners needed it to keep up their economy. Bear in mind that the majority of whites in the South at the time were too poor to own slaves to begin with, and yet enlisted for the reasons to be stated.

The slavery debate itself did spark a rivalry which would contribute to the war. The Slavery Debate led to several skirmishes, both metaphorically and literally, within the US about what rights were granted to whom. Rather than slave rights, the real issue was in the concept of States' Rights. States' Rights, in essence, states that the provincial-level governors, those who govern the states, should be given a right to decline or accept certain laws as part of their legal system. This concept was widely popular throughout the South, and generally ignored or despised in the North.

At the same time, the North had a much more industrial economy and a significantly more urban environment. This is true, especially in comparison to the South, whose economy was mostly based on agricultural exports. Due to this difference, there was sure to be some conflicting interests. Tariffs raised in the South had raised secessionist sentiment previously, and even caused a minor internal crisis. The continuation of the tariffs had been instated, in part, to encourage the South to do more in-trading with the North. This conflicted with the Southern interest, whose economical might was based mostly in exporting to Europe.

As well as the other contributors, political parties played their own role. While the North was mostly comprised of Republicans, the South had been largely in favor of the Democratic party. This simple political divide often brought fights to governmental meetings, and blew up certain debates past their proportional size. This tendency continues between the two parties, and even today they fight, though with less cane-slaps. The Anarcho-liberal Southerners simply did not like the Republican North.

Each region also held an independent culture of the other. The 'Yankee' and 'Dixie' cultures held great contrasts and opposite extremes, ultimately resulting in only yet another reason of disagreement.

These are the major factors contributing to a violent, bloody, brutal war. While the South had experienced leaders and hardened soldiers, the North was the industrial powerhouse of the era, and so it really became a quality vs. quantity fight. The war took more American lives than all other wars which the United States had participated in combined. Nobody in the war was really right in what they did, barely any of it could even be considered justified, but the North wound up victorious and ushered a new age of the country.

For the North, this ends up as rejoicing, unity, nationalism, and wealth. For the South, it was known as Reconstruction. In a way, their predictions had been right. Many African-Americans suddenly found themselves homeless and starving, though aided by some organizations created to assist them. The Southern economy was devastated, with many of their largest and most important cities having been burned down without evacuation. This detail is important to show how brutal the war had become, that major cities would smolder atop the corpses of the civilians within. With a devastated economy, an increasing population, and a destructed government, the South would take a few decades to rebuild itself.

Ultimately, it was no individual cause. No side held the entire fault. This bloody disaster was the result of a chain reaction of several events and causes, and I hope everyone here has learned something from this. Good day to you all, North or South, and have a wonderful life

.

Interesting and informative (though much of this I was already aware of), but that was not actually an answer to the OP's question.

[Westerheim]

West Coast, the point I'm making, ethnicity or nationality or whatever else aside, slave is just a label. I can call a knife a spoon, but it'll still be a knife. Likewise, one can call a person a slave, but they'll still be a person.

[Margno]

Let's take a look at all the places where I "claim" that the south is "universally friendly."

If the claim is that the south is friendly, and you're objecting to me saying that it ISN'T that way for everyone...

Isn't that the same as you saying it IS universally friendly?

Okay. I'm gonna try to explain this.
"Awesome" is a subjective term.
It can't be "obviously false" that a particular region of a country is awesome.
If I'm saying that something is awesome, I'm expressing an opinion. In this case, my opinion is based on experience.
You also have an opinion, based on experience. But you seem to think that your opinion is objective fact. It's not. It's hilariously anecdotal and utterly baseless as a system for judging an entire region of a country. You also seem to think that there is, not just an objective definition of "awesome," but an obvious one, with clearly defineable criteria that can be verified with a quick google search. And you seem to think it's "having been found to have a statistically higher incidence of racism than a particular other region of the country."
And then, in the funniest move of all, you start attacking me, for having the opinion that the south is friendly, thinking that if you can show that any unfriendliness at all is present in the south, I would be, what? Disproven? I really did live in Texas, and people really were friendly to me. It really is my opinion that the south is friendly. You seem to think that I, like you, imagine that my statement that "the south is awesome," is an objective, indisputable truth. I don't. It's an opinion.

[Oakbrook and Calvarie]

You're a slave, by definition "He's" one of the big boys not you. And I wouldn't go around trying to give orders to your slaver.

You thought, though.

That's not a response.

[Destrovia]

Not racist, but an idiotic display of "Southern Pride" that honors traitors.

Your only saying that because the U.S isn't remembered as a backwater nation of treasonous vipers in her majesties American colonies.

I think the Confederates stole your totally original idea of an X in the middle of a flag.

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

There appears to be a generally biased view of the Southern Secession in this thread. I wish to bring to you all the facts, as they are, unbiased. In this, I shall not choose sides. I shall not say "We are right, you are wrong", because that's not how war works. It shall be largely from the viewpoint of the South, though it nonetheless explains what happened in the truth, and not what happened according to the side. History is written by the victors, but it made without bias.

For the South at the time, their entire economy was driven by slavery. Although this was not a major contributing factor to the war initially, as had been quoted by Lincoln himself, it was important economically. Although slavery is a horrible, miserable practice which should never be practiced, the Southerners needed it to keep up their economy. Bear in mind that the majority of whites in the South at the time were too poor to own slaves to begin with, and yet enlisted for the reasons to be stated.

The slavery debate itself did spark a rivalry which would contribute to the war. The Slavery Debate led to several skirmishes, both metaphorically and literally, within the US about what rights were granted to whom. Rather than slave rights, the real issue was in the concept of States' Rights. States' Rights, in essence, states that the provincial-level governors, those who govern the states, should be given a right to decline or accept certain laws as part of their legal system. This concept was widely popular throughout the South, and generally ignored or despised in the North.

At the same time, the North had a much more industrial economy and a significantly more urban environment. This is true, especially in comparison to the South, whose economy was mostly based on agricultural exports. Due to this difference, there was sure to be some conflicting interests. Tariffs raised in the South had raised secessionist sentiment previously, and even caused a minor internal crisis. The continuation of the tariffs had been instated, in part, to encourage the South to do more in-trading with the North. This conflicted with the Southern interest, whose economical might was based mostly in exporting to Europe.

As well as the other contributors, political parties played their own role. While the North was mostly comprised of Republicans, the South had been largely in favor of the Democratic party. This simple political divide often brought fights to governmental meetings, and blew up certain debates past their proportional size. This tendency continues between the two parties, and even today they fight, though with less cane-slaps. The Anarcho-liberal Southerners simply did not like the Republican North.

Each region also held an independent culture of the other. The 'Yankee' and 'Dixie' cultures held great contrasts and opposite extremes, ultimately resulting in only yet another reason of disagreement.

These are the major factors contributing to a violent, bloody, brutal war. While the South had experienced leaders and hardened soldiers, the North was the industrial powerhouse of the era, and so it really became a quality vs. quantity fight. The war took more American lives than all other wars which the United States had participated in combined. Nobody in the war was really right in what they did, barely any of it could even be considered justified, but the North wound up victorious and ushered a new age of the country.

For the North, this ends up as rejoicing, unity, nationalism, and wealth. For the South, it was known as Reconstruction. In a way, their predictions had been right. Many African-Americans suddenly found themselves homeless and starving, though aided by some organizations created to assist them. The Southern economy was devastated, with many of their largest and most important cities having been burned down without evacuation. This detail is important to show how brutal the war had become, that major cities would smolder atop the corpses of the civilians within. With a devastated economy, an increasing population, and a destructed government, the South would take a few decades to rebuild itself.

Ultimately, it was no individual cause. No side held the entire fault. This bloody disaster was the result of a chain reaction of several events and causes, and I hope everyone here has learned something from this. Good day to you all, North or South, and have a wonderful life

.

Interesting and informative (though much of this I was already aware of), but that was not actually an answer to the OP's question.

I was simply trying to ease some of the tension that appears to build on these sorts of things. Even today, the North and South do not share a culture, 'Dixie' and 'Yankee' cultures are prevalent, and the rivalry appears to continue. Nonetheless, I do not find the flag inherently racist. I find it a symbol of the Confederate States of America, which stood for many things outside of slavery. However, due to biased history and hate groups, it has gained an undeserved racist reputation.

[Seveth]

I'm not sure if this has been pointed out already, but that isn't the Confederate flag. That is the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. This is the actual Confederate flag:

[Seperates]

West Coast, the point I'm making, ethnicity or nationality or whatever else aside, slave is just a label. I can call a knife a spoon, but it'll still be a knife. Likewise, one can call a person a slave, but they'll still be a person.

Unless, of course, you change the public opinion enough so that the word "spoon" is the symbol for the item which we currently call "knife".

But that is semantics.

[Providence and Port Hope]

Waving a Confederate flag basically means "I support an organization which committed high treason against a democratically elected government resulting in the deaths of millions of Americans all in order to maintain the vile institution of slavery. Go me!"
But, ya know that's just me.

Not all southerners supported slavery. Part of it was that they felt crushed because of the north's strength over them in politics, and with tariffs and other grievances, they felt like they deserved independence. Slavery was a reason, and a major one, but then again, only 1 out of 20 southerners owned slaves.

Did Texas not rebel because they were a bunch of angry immigrants that wanted to kick out the government who gave them a place to live?

Did the Thirteen Colonies not rebel because of some whacky new-age philosophy and some taxes on a popular drink?

You can make anything sound crazy if you put it in a certain context. The CSA would have been a horrible nation, but at the same time, it wasn't entirely about slavery. Even Robert E. Lee, from what I remember (and if I am not mistaken) was against slavery.

[West Angola]

a lot of them think it represents either Lynyrd Skynyrd or the Dukes of Hazzard.

I have a sneaking suspicion that might not be entirely true...

Even if it was racist, its display is protected free speech under the First Amendment.

"Haha the first amendment protects my right to visually proclaim my hatred of a racial group! This is Constitutionally allowed and that makes it morally okay!"

[Pandeeria]

Good riddance to slavery and the confederacy. The leaders should (and probably were) harshly and justly punished.

In fairness while the war was about slavery the reasons many of the former government ministers and generals was not. State loyalty, Family ties, spousal choices, future of their children, and various other reasons fueled why so many people joined the secession movement and went for the CSA as such.

Yeah, I didn't say everyone. But I wouldn't be against punishing the leaders like Jefferson Davis.

[-The West Coast-]

You thought, though.

That's not a response.

That's not a response.