Is the Confederate Flag offensive?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

People should have the right to change their system of government and/or redraw political boundaries at any time if the old ones are no longer meeting their needs. That's how self-determination works.

So if the city of Los Angeles one day decides it needs to declare independence and transform itself into a totalitarian autocracy, both the state of California and the US federal government should simply clap like impotent seals and let that happen?

Heil Garcetti!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Do you think this influenced the segregation, which lasted until the 1960s, was it? And some of the lingering racism in the US?

I wonder if some of the racism talks in Europe actually influenced post-Civil war thought though.

I mean, much of the concept of racism comes from Europe's studies about race during the 1700s. And it has been one of the most damaging ideologies coming out of the enlightenment in general.

Probably. Racism in Europe is quite palpable. Not just toward black people, but toward the Roma, the Arab, the Jews...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why shouldn't it work that way? Westphalian sovereignty loses all its usefulness if the monopoly on the use of force can simply be dissolved at whim.

People should have the right to change their system of government and/or redraw political boundaries at any time if the old ones are no longer meeting their needs. That's how self-determination works.

Self-Determination and letting people choose their own destiny works, like with Marxism, only very well in paper. In reality, it's quite crappy the execution of it, because people have their own interests at heart. So, as long as a state has a vested interest in a place, that place has no true self-determination.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Those things are a product of the ideologies that people used to rationalize slavery. They aren't specifically related to the war. We probably would have had some type of lasting racial issues regardless of whether slavery ended peacefully or violently.

This is probably accurate.

However, without a non-war timeline, we'll never know if that would have been the case.

One could probably infer it, though. Racism, slavery, for centuries, many have tried to rationalize these. Some with more success than others.
Take for example the aboriginals in the Americas. The European explorers/conquerors viewed them as less. They thought they couldn't learn anything from them. And in considering them less, in thinking they had no true grasp of what was valuable, they justified enslaving them.

[Mushet]

People should have the right to change their system of government and/or redraw political boundaries at any time if the old ones are no longer meeting their needs. That's how self-determination works.

So if the city of Los Angeles one day decides it needs to declare independence and transform itself into a totalitarian autocracy, both the state of California and the US federal government should simply clap like impotent seals and let that happen?

Why would the citizens of the city of Los Angeles decide to do that?

[The Truth and Light]

So if the city of Los Angeles one day decides it needs to declare independence and transform itself into a totalitarian autocracy, both the state of California and the US federal government should simply clap like impotent seals and let that happen?

Why would the citizens of the city of Los Angeles decide to do that?

Let's just pretend that there's a perfectly sensible reason that they would do that, so the hypothetical situation can stand.

[Orham]

Why would the citizens of the city of Los Angeles decide to do that?

The point isn't the why of it, the point is whether that should even be an option. The point is that the entire concept of national sovereignty is void when people can just arbitrarily redraw political boundaries to suit themselves.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This is probably accurate.

However, without a non-war timeline, we'll never know if that would have been the case.

One could probably infer it, though. Racism, slavery, for centuries, many have tried to rationalize these. Some with more success than others.
Take for example the aboriginals in the Americas. The European explorers/conquerors viewed them as less. They thought they couldn't learn anything from them. And in considering them less, in thinking they had no true grasp of what was valuable, they justified enslaving them.

This is true.

I think that, infering it, we would have taken a couple of generations more to abolish slavery if Lincoln would have kept the status quo. And even more time to get through the idea of racism in America.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

One could probably infer it, though. Racism, slavery, for centuries, many have tried to rationalize these. Some with more success than others.
Take for example the aboriginals in the Americas. The European explorers/conquerors viewed them as less. They thought they couldn't learn anything from them. And in considering them less, in thinking they had no true grasp of what was valuable, they justified enslaving them.

This is true.

I think that, infering it, we would have taken a couple of generations more to abolish slavery if Lincoln would have kept the status quo. And even more time to get through the idea of racism in America.

Perhaps. But it's not like things changed much. Racism was quite rampant up until the 1960s. Then, it has continued, its just that it is more hush hush in some places, while more blatant in others.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why would the citizens of the city of Los Angeles decide to do that?

The point isn't the why of it, the point is whether that should even be an option. The point is that the entire concept of national sovereignty is void when people can just arbitrarily redraw political boundaries to suit themselves.

Although it is true that, if people have legitimate grievances which do make their lives a hardship they have the right to seek independence from their motherland, I think your concept is reasonable in terms of cities such as Los Angeles, where people would just arbitrarily do so.

It wouldn't make much sense either, given that they do have representation in the government and are not being taxed to death, among other things which are the reasons why states seek independence in general (although some do for stupid reasons).

[Mushet]

Why would the citizens of the city of Los Angeles decide to do that?

The point isn't the why of it, the point is whether that should even be an option. The point is that the entire concept of national sovereignty is void when people can just arbitrarily redraw political boundaries to suit themselves.

Well if it really is sensible, in our best interests and suited to us for the sake of the hypothetical situation why shouldn't we be able to do it?

[Confederate Flower Power]

People should have the right to change their system of government and/or redraw political boundaries at any time if the old ones are no longer meeting their needs. That's how self-determination works.

So if the city of Los Angeles one day decides it needs to declare independence and transform itself into a totalitarian autocracy, both the state of California and the US federal government should simply clap like impotent seals and let that happen?

The US and California might have a problem with it, but from the rebels' point of view that wouldn't negate their right to an independent totalitarian autocracy. Just because something goes against existing laws does not make it automatically wrong. I'm not necessarily saying that the South should be independent or that LA should be a totalitarian city-state. I'm just saying the legality of it and the morality are separate issues.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The point isn't the why of it, the point is whether that should even be an option. The point is that the entire concept of national sovereignty is void when people can just arbitrarily redraw political boundaries to suit themselves.

Well if it really is sensible, in our best interests and suited to us for the sake of the hypothetical situation why shouldn't we be able to do it?

Why am I suddenly picturing Dr. Loveless's map of the US in "Wild Wild West"?

http://wildwildwest.warnerbros.com/cmp/l-mapbig.html

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This is true.

I think that, infering it, we would have taken a couple of generations more to abolish slavery if Lincoln would have kept the status quo. And even more time to get through the idea of racism in America.

Perhaps. But it's not like things changed much. Racism was quite rampant up until the 1960s. Then, it has continued, its just that it is more hush hush in some places, while more blatant in others.

Like always, intellectuals tend to be the early embracers of change, that has happened all throughout civilization. To go back to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment didn't happen all across Europe at a single time, it only happened at Universities and among intellectuals for the most part. People of common living were not influenced in the slightest by this, and the ideas discussed in the higher circles of European society didn't trickle down to the common populace until many years after the fact was already discussed.

Of course, now with the internet there is no excuse, but back then we didn't have the internet, relying on letters and written documents to pass along information, which made the dissemination of ideas much more slower.So it is possible that, while most people who had access to Universities and other idea centers were influenced by anti-racism, the "common" people were not up to par yet, and this could be a reason why racism has persisted still today.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The point isn't the why of it, the point is whether that should even be an option. The point is that the entire concept of national sovereignty is void when people can just arbitrarily redraw political boundaries to suit themselves.

Well if it really is sensible, in our best interests and suited to us for the sake of the hypothetical situation why shouldn't we be able to do it?

It's not the fact you can't do it or shouldn't do it. It's whether or not the state will let you do it without giving out a fight. The answer is no, it wouldn't. So the concept of self-sovereignty when it comes to nation-states is quite ambiguous and yet not a definite notion of transference of power.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Perhaps. But it's not like things changed much. Racism was quite rampant up until the 1960s. Then, it has continued, its just that it is more hush hush in some places, while more blatant in others.

Like always, intellectuals tend to be the early embracers of change, that has happened all throughout civilization. To go back to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment didn't happen all across Europe at a single time, it only happened at Universities and among intellectuals for the most part. People of common living were not influenced in the slightest by this, and the ideas discussed in the higher circles of European society didn't trickle down to the common populace until many years after the fact was already discussed.

Of course, now with the internet there is no excuse, but back then we didn't have the internet, relying on letters and written documents to pass along information, which made the dissemination of ideas much more slower.So it is possible that, while most people who had access to Universities and other idea centers were influenced by anti-racism, the "common" people were not up to par yet, and this could be a reason why racism has persisted still today.

Indeed. Movements didn't happened at the same time in all of Europe. It was always a gradual and slow thing.

[Eaglleia]

It should be legal, but I can see why people would be offended.

[Mushet]

Well if it really is sensible, in our best interests and suited to us for the sake of the hypothetical situation why shouldn't we be able to do it?

It's not the fact you can't do it or shouldn't do it. It's whether or not the state will let you do it without giving out a fight. The answer is no, it wouldn't. So the concept of self-sovereignty when it comes to nation-states is quite ambiguous and yet not a definite notion of transference of power.

They won't like it, but to me this whole shouldn't be able to do what's in a seperate population's best interest because of some arbitrary notion of nationalism is kinda stupid, even if the sensible best interest thing in this hypothetical is pretty damn insane.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's not the fact you can't do it or shouldn't do it. It's whether or not the state will let you do it without giving out a fight. The answer is no, it wouldn't. So the concept of self-sovereignty when it comes to nation-states is quite ambiguous and yet not a definite notion of transference of power.

They won't like it, but to me this whole shouldn't be able to do what's in a seperate population's best interest because of some arbitrary notion of nationalism is kinda stupid, even if the sensible best interest thing in this hypothetical is pretty damn insane.

Yet that's how things turn out sometimes. Take the Falkland Islands and Argentina's continued claim of them belonging to Argentina. How many times must you be told that the islanders wish to remain British? It is the sensible thing to do because it is what the islanders want. But Argentina insists.

[Beta Test]

It should be legal, but I can see why people would be offended.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's not the fact you can't do it or shouldn't do it. It's whether or not the state will let you do it without giving out a fight. The answer is no, it wouldn't. So the concept of self-sovereignty when it comes to nation-states is quite ambiguous and yet not a definite notion of transference of power.

They won't like it, but to me this whole shouldn't be able to do what's in a seperate population's best interest because of some arbitrary notion of nationalism is kinda stupid, even if the sensible best interest thing in this hypothetical is pretty damn insane.

I think it is as much of a right for people to decide to use their own power to be independent if needed as the state's right to keep the country united and indivisible, along with the duty it has to its citizens to look towards their interest. The state will always be nationalistic in nature, it is the modern nation-state we are talking about and as such the nation-state will not let go of something that, in its own best interest, is best to keep even if it is by force.

[Mushet]

They won't like it, but to me this whole shouldn't be able to do what's in a seperate population's best interest because of some arbitrary notion of nationalism is kinda stupid, even if the sensible best interest thing in this hypothetical is pretty damn insane.

Yet that's how things turn out sometimes. Take the Falkland Islands and Argentina's continued claim of them belonging to Argentina. How many times must you be told that the islanders wish to remain British? It is the sensible thing to do because it is what the islanders want. But Argentina insists.

And that's not even remotely insane

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yet that's how things turn out sometimes. Take the Falkland Islands and Argentina's continued claim of them belonging to Argentina. How many times must you be told that the islanders wish to remain British? It is the sensible thing to do because it is what the islanders want. But Argentina insists.

And that's not even remotely insane

Nope. But you see it serves to illustrate.

To add to Soldati's last post. If it were up to me, I'd let the Basque, the Catalan and the Galegos go free. Independent from the rest of Spain. However, I do understand that the govt wants to keep the country united and will probably fight any attempts at independence these provinces make. I guess that was probably part of the driving force behind the creation of the US, its unification and why the Civil War happened as an attempt to both maintain said union and to split it.

[Lemanrussland]

I find it offensive. Despite the "it's a symbol of Southern heritage" angle, I honestly immediately think of the Confederacy, slavery and racism when I see it.

It should be legal still, of course. Neo-Nazi and racist flags or political parties shouldn't be banned, this is Murica.

[Mushet]

They won't like it, but to me this whole shouldn't be able to do what's in a seperate population's best interest because of some arbitrary notion of nationalism is kinda stupid, even if the sensible best interest thing in this hypothetical is pretty damn insane.

I think it is as much of a right for people to decide to use their own power to be independent if needed as the state's right to keep the country united and indivisible, along with the duty it has to its citizens to look towards their interest. The state will always be nationalistic in nature, it is the modern nation-state we are talking about and as such the nation-state will not let go of something that, in its own best interest, is best to keep even if it is by force.

States don't have rights, they have duties and responsibilities towards their citizenry, the citizens know their own self interest better than the state does, the state will probably act dickish and towards the interests of the people at the top that run the state, doesn't mean the state is very justified in doing so.