Do you consider the Confederate flag to be racist

[Finium]

Do you what nationalism is? It is not the belief in rebelling against the central government.

It's not a rebellion. It's a secession in favour of a new nationality.

Secession is rebellion when not sanctioned by the nation from which one is seceding. Thus, the Union referring to the South as rebels.

[Divair2]

It's not a rebellion. It's a secession in favour of a new nationality.

Secession is rebellion when not sanctioned by the nation from which one is seceding. Thus, the Union referring to the South as rebels.

The Union does not dictate reality.

[Maureteco]

Secession is rebellion when not sanctioned by the nation from which one is seceding. Thus, the Union referring to the South as rebels.

The Union does not dictate reality.

It does when it wins. Lol

Seriously though, you guys are wasting your time arguing about this.

[Orla]

Again, yes I do, but only if it used in a racist manner.

[Riiser-Larsen]

The existence of the Confederacy was pretty much entirely due to fear that the North would try and ban slavery, so yes, it's racist. Saying the confederate flag was not racist would be like saying that the Third Reich's flag was not anti-Semitic.

[Seperates]

Secession is rebellion when not sanctioned by the nation from which one is seceding. Thus, the Union referring to the South as rebels.

The Union does not dictate reality.

Even though some of the Confederacy saw it as a "New Rebellion", likening it to the American Rebellion. So it wasn't just the Union referring to them as 'rebels'. Even though this is just historical semantics.

[Tekania]

The Union does not dictate reality.

Even though some of the Confederacy saw it as a "New Rebellion", likening it to the American Rebellion. So it wasn't just the Union referring to them as 'rebels'. Even though this is just historical semantics.

Indeed, it's both. A rebellion (opposition to established authority) and a secession (leaving an existing group or alliance).

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

Hell, even the Holy Roman Empire lasted longer than the Roman Empire proper.

East Roman Empire only lasted from 27BC to 476AD. Source.

And no, I wouldn't consider the West truly as the Roman Empire. I would have considered it what it was, a piece that broke away and eventually formed the Byzantine Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire is actually impressive for how long it lasted.

My point was someone insulted Rome and I said CSA lasted 5 years whereas by any definition you like Rome lasted for a Millennium and more: Rome - Italy from 756 BC to 450 AD; Roman Empire from 27 to 1450; Holy roman Empire from 800 to 1805; Russian Tsardom from 1400 to 1900 - OK bad example, but the point stands: Rome is 200 times better at ruling than CsA.

[Paketo]

That isn't even the Confederate flag, this is. That is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia lead by Robert E. Lee which had Blacks fighting under it so no, it is not racist.

[Seperates]

Even though some of the Confederacy saw it as a "New Rebellion", likening it to the American Rebellion. So it wasn't just the Union referring to them as 'rebels'. Even though this is just historical semantics.

Indeed, it's both. A rebellion (opposition to established authority) and a secession (leaving an existing group or alliance).

Agreed.

[Divair2]

That isn't even the Confederate flag, this is. That is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia lead by Robert E. Lee which had Blacks fighting under it so no, it is not racist.

Millionth time this has been posted.

[Nervium]

That isn't even the Confederate flag, this is. That is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia lead by Robert E. Lee which had Blacks fighting under it so no, it is not racist.

Millionth time this has been posted.

Millionth time it's wrong too.

That deserves a zinc medal, methinks.

[Tekania]

Indeed, it's both. A rebellion (opposition to established authority) and a secession (leaving an existing group or alliance).

Agreed.

The term insurrection could be applied as well. The term "Revolution" however would not be applicable.

[Kelinfort]

Millionth time this has been posted.

Millionth time it's wrong too.

That deserves a zinc medal, methinks.

Nah, cadmium, it's toxic, just like treason

[Seperates]

Agreed.

The term insurrection could be applied as well. The term "Revolution" however would not be applicable.

Which is why I always wonder why some people believe it applied it to our own colonial rebellion... but I suppose everybody likes their names for things

[Tekania]

The term insurrection could be applied as well. The term "Revolution" however would not be applicable.

Which is why I always wonder why some people believe it applied it to our own colonial rebellion... but I suppose everybody likes their names for things

Actually "revolution" would apply to our own colonial rebellion as well as replacement of government was a component, giving that the revolt coincided with the replacement of Crown Appointed Governors with ones elected or appointed by the colonial governments. Thus with replacement of government to fulfill the concept of a revolt.

[Nervium]

Millionth time it's wrong too.

That deserves a zinc medal, methinks.

Nah, cadmium, it's toxic, just like treason

Not all treason is evil, treason in the name of an institution that degrades a fellow human being is, however, pretty damn evil.

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

Nah, cadmium, it's toxic, just like treason

Not all treason is evil, treason in the name of an institution that degrades a fellow human being is, however, pretty damn evil.

Are you saying that Treason versus an evil State is a Virtue and Treason versus a Good state is aVice

|If so, I agree MbO.

[Demen 2]

It's just an overall stupid thing to be proud of. Ultimately, it represents the failure of an already bad idea.

[Margno]

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 think it would show that the claim that the south was (awesome because it is) friendly is not true in any kind of overall, or general way.

Which is where I came in. I'm sorry if this seems too complicated.

Let's compare information here.
Me:
I lived in the South, and saw people being friendly to each other
You:
You lived in the South, and saw people being unfriendly to each other
You have a study which shows that racism is a bigger problem in the south.

You can try to frame it however you want. Doesn't change the fact that you have nothing.

[Erreulonia]

Most certainly not.

[Molsonian Republics]

The existence of the Confederacy was pretty much entirely due to fear that the North would try and ban slavery, so yes, it's racist. Saying the confederate flag was not racist would be like saying that the Third Reich's flag was not anti-Semitic.

The American flag represents a country that killed millions of Native Americans. The Japanese flag represents a country that killed millions of people because they're not Japanese. Nobody calls those flags offensive or racist.

[Molsonian Republics]

That isn't even the Confederate flag, this is. That is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia lead by Robert E. Lee which had Blacks fighting under it so no, it is not racist.

I was referring to the one thats commonly used in the modern era, not the official flag of the CSA. I understand your confusion

[Threlizdun]

The existence of the Confederacy was pretty much entirely due to fear that the North would try and ban slavery, so yes, it's racist. Saying the confederate flag was not racist would be like saying that the Third Reich's flag was not anti-Semitic.

The American flag represents a country that killed millions of Native Americans. The Japanese flag represents a country that killed millions of people because they're not Japanese. Nobody calls those flags offensive or racist.

America has done horrendous things worthy of condemnation and through which opposition to its flag is understandable, but unlike the Confederate flag it was not representing a nation whose reason for being founded was the preservation of slavery. The American flag represents some vile things; the Confederate flag only represents vile things.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The American flag represents a country that killed millions of Native Americans. The Japanese flag represents a country that killed millions of people because they're not Japanese. Nobody calls those flags offensive or racist.

America has done horrendous things worthy of condemnation and through which opposition to its flag is understandable, but unlike the Confederate flag it was not representing a nation whose reason for being founded was the preservation of slavery. The American flag represents some vile things; the Confederate flag only represents vile things.

You should look into Confederate relations with Native American tribes.

To summarize, and to paraphrase a Native American academic who gave a lecture on the topic six months ago or so, "They weren't gigantic dickweeds intent on taking our land and civilizing us or killing us, whichever was more convenient."