I've been there once or twice, I thought that state was pretty nice. Sweet people there too. Anyway, I'm from Virginia
Advertisement
by Jueia » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:35 pm
by Quelsh » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:36 pm
by Kivhala » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:38 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Kivhala wrote:Take this from a southerner from a line of southerners. Many of us didn't own slaves during or before the civil war, those were the rich, the plantation owners. We probably owned a homestead and a small farm, not a plantation with a cash crop like cotton. As well when it became popular it wasn't about racism, it was about being a rebel. You carry around that flag you're a rebel, I forgot the person now believe it was on TV years ago, he drove a car either with the battle flag painted on it or as the front plate, he did it because he wanted to say he was a rebel.
Nothing to do with damn race. But, people scewed what it was somewhere along the line, became racism, you have it you're racist. Actually wrong, I've met many, many, too many people with the battle flag. Never would I think them racist, especially since many of their co workers and peers are black. Now people may use it to be racist, but I can pick up any flag and do that. No flag is inherently racist, even if it is used for those means, it is purely the people behind any flag that could be racist.
Though, I'll say, I love the stereotypes of my home.
While I can understand what you're talking about, that doesn't change what the cause they were fighting for was for.
I'm sure plenty of Germans, Japanese, and Italians were decent people at heart in WWII. Plenty of Germans for instance were simply upset at the unfair treatment of their country at the end of WWI, having perfectly understandable motives. But that does excuse the flag they fought under, which is universally condemned as a symbol of a nation with evil intentions. Like the Confederacy.
by Kivhala » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:42 pm
by Jelmatt » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:31 pm
Arpeggian Republic wrote:the confederates wanted to leave America, so their flag means "cross us out of the union", hence, the giant X. It had nothing to do with or had any association to slavery at the time, it wasn't even the national flag. The reason why the confederate flag is considered racist now is because it's popular in the south. So... I guess I don't believe a flag can be racist. It's just symbols. Yes, of course the people that used them were full of shit, but the flag holds no value whatsoever. Interesting topic btw.
Kivhala wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
While I can understand what you're talking about, that doesn't change what the cause they were fighting for was for.
I'm sure plenty of Germans, Japanese, and Italians were decent people at heart in WWII. Plenty of Germans for instance were simply upset at the unfair treatment of their country at the end of WWI, having perfectly understandable motives. But that does excuse the flag they fought under, which is universally condemned as a symbol of a nation with evil intentions. Like the Confederacy.
States' rights evil intentions? Slavery was just for economic purposes, people were talking about getting with them times during it. There is no evil intentions with states' rights, evil intentions in war as always though. I'll have to say, any civil war has multiple reasons for it. States' rights was the main cause, so was differences with the northern states, lack of common political beliefs (as in federalism vs a confederacy). Mean I guess confederacy (decentralized) and federal (centralized) systems are the main disagreements which caused that war. Not slaves.
Edit sorry for errors on mobile
by Jueia » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:58 am
by Calladan » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:09 am
by Nexus of All Realities » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:20 am
Calladan wrote:Here's another point of view for you all.
So what is my point?
... Because while freedom of speech is a noble thing, there are times where you should just shut the fuck up and move on. Because it's just a fucking piece of cloth, so get the fuck over it.
by Calladan » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:25 am
Nexus of All Realities wrote:Calladan wrote:Here's another point of view for you all.
So what is my point?
... Because while freedom of speech is a noble thing, there are times where you should just shut the fuck up and move on. Because it's just a fucking piece of cloth, so get the fuck over it.
That's the point in favor of allowing the flag to be flown in the first place.
by Liriena » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:54 am
by Finswedeway » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:59 am
To survive the coming age, we must adapt, resist populist influences, and root out greedy tyranny from the hallowed halls of government, and as God is my witness, we will survive.
-Audo av Sangua
by Finswedeway » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:06 pm
Liriena wrote:Yes, a flag can be racist, insofar as it can explicitly represent racial prejudice or can have a history of representing racist interests. Confederate flags are racist, for example, because of their history as the symbols of a rogue state founded with the openly stated intent of perpetuating the enslavement of an entire group of people deemed "racially inferior".
Of course, there's an inevitable rabbit hole down which we'd be bound to fall if we started to look into the history of most modern nations and the flags that represent them. One could just as easily argue that the American flag is also, in a sense, a symbol of racism, insofar as it is a symbol of a state that has actively discriminated against specific groups of people based on racial prejudice throughout its history. The same could go for the flags of many other nations in the American continent, as well as those of some European nations.
To survive the coming age, we must adapt, resist populist influences, and root out greedy tyranny from the hallowed halls of government, and as God is my witness, we will survive.
-Audo av Sangua
by Liriena » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:13 pm
Finswedeway wrote:Liriena wrote:Yes, a flag can be racist, insofar as it can explicitly represent racial prejudice or can have a history of representing racist interests. Confederate flags are racist, for example, because of their history as the symbols of a rogue state founded with the openly stated intent of perpetuating the enslavement of an entire group of people deemed "racially inferior".
Of course, there's an inevitable rabbit hole down which we'd be bound to fall if we started to look into the history of most modern nations and the flags that represent them. One could just as easily argue that the American flag is also, in a sense, a symbol of racism, insofar as it is a symbol of a state that has actively discriminated against specific groups of people based on racial prejudice throughout its history. The same could go for the flags of many other nations in the American continent, as well as those of some European nations.
You could easily get a few disgusted glares if you fly the union jack in Africa. Equally as such would you likely get murdured if you flew a rwandan flag in the congo.
All flags have positive and negative connotations (some more than others due to history having a selective memory), as no one is inherintly more or less racist. The Europeans simply had superior amounts of resources and temperate land so that they could expand and subsequently exploit other people. Who do you think sold African slaves to the Europeans? Other Africans.
To conclude:
We're all equally awful people.
by Threlizdun » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:36 pm
Yes, most Southerners did not own slaves, and the war was exclusively to the benefit of the Southern plantation class, but the war was justified to the white working class by arguing that it elevated them above the lowest tier of society. Slavery was argued to be natural, holy, and the only way to preserve social order. Furthermore, at the time people were regularly defined in terms of breeding and pedigree. Northerners were said to be 'mudsills', in which the blood of the founders had been horribly diluted. The plantation owners argued that they were the last carriers of the pure blood of the founders, and that they were the true heirs to their legacy. The Confederacy argued for their existence almost exclusively along racial lines. It all worked to justify the existing order and distract from the fact that class inequality was rapidly growing among Southern whites in the Antebellum period. The Confederate battle flag is a terrible symbol for the Southern working class to cling to, as it represents the legacy of those who thought they were worth little more than slaves, sought to suppress their political voice whenever possible, hated the prospect of their upward mobility, and forced massive numbers of them into service to die in a war were victory would mean continued suffering for them.Kivhala wrote:Jueia wrote:Some backstory of the Confederate Flag:
The Confederate Flag that is used widely today was not the National Flag of the C.S.A. It was a proposed flag that went through the Confederate Senate, but it never was voted through. The C.S.A actually had around 5 different flags though out its short history. Anyway, that was the Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, which was led by General Robert E. Lee, when Lee surrendered in 1865 to Grant, Union and Confederate Solders took some of the surviving flags back to their homes and overtime these flags became a popular symbol of "rasicsm and white supremacy". Most people don't even know that this was a flag of a army in the C.S.A.
Take this from a southerner from a line of southerners. Many of us didn't own slaves during or before the civil war, those were the rich, the plantation owners. We probably owned a homestead and a small farm, not a plantation with a cash crop like cotton.
The General Lee from the Dukes of Hazzard had the flag emblazoned on it. This is not when the flag first became popularized however, far from it. The flag was first popularized by the Ku Klux Klan, and would see continued use by other members commemorating the "lost cause" of the Confederacy. It was expressly promoting white supremacy. The flag saw continued use by pro-segregation forces in the South. The commercial adoption of the flag came about primarily through the depictions of Southern culture in television, movies, and music from the sixties onward. This is were the recasting of the flag as being a symbol of rebellion began. Before that, it was rarely, if ever, displayed without overt understanding and support of its racial connotations.As well when it became popular it wasn't about racism, it was about being a rebel. You carry around that flag you're a rebel, I forgot the person now believe it was on TV years ago, he drove a car either with the battle flag painted on it or as the front plate, he did it because he wanted to say he was a rebel.
The "they have black friends" argument does not usually bode well for those making it.Nothing to do with damn race. But, people scewed what it was somewhere along the line, became racism, you have it you're racist. Actually wrong, I've met many, many, too many people with the battle flag. Never would I think them racist, especially since many of their co workers and peers are black.
There's a difference between a flag possibly having racial connotations and a flag being predominantly used as a symbol for slavery, white supremacism, and segregation throughout most of its history. Symbols can often mean different things to different people, but there is a clear history of racism connected to that flag that makes it exceptionally difficult for others not to see, especially people of color for whom individuals waving that flag historically have wanted them dead or in chains.Now people may use it to be racist, but I can pick up any flag and do that. No flag is inherently racist, even if it is used for those means, it is purely the people behind any flag that could be racist.
I'm not too sure about all the stereotypes, but there are definitely aspects of Southern culture I love. That flag and everything it represents is not one of them. Historical revisionism has been a plague on the South.Though, I'll say, I love the stereotypes of my home.
by Finswedeway » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:00 pm
Liriena wrote:Finswedeway wrote:You could easily get a few disgusted glares if you fly the union jack in Africa. Equally as such would you likely get murdured if you flew a rwandan flag in the congo.
All flags have positive and negative connotations (some more than others due to history having a selective memory), as no one is inherintly more or less racist. The Europeans simply had superior amounts of resources and temperate land so that they could expand and subsequently exploit other people. Who do you think sold African slaves to the Europeans? Other Africans.
To conclude:
We're all equally awful people.
What is it with the "Africans sold African slaves" excuse always coming up when discussing European racism and the European slave trade? If I were a human trafficker today, selling Romanian children in the United States, I don't think law enforcement would absolve me if I told them that I originally bought the children from a Romanian crime lord.
Also... the Europeans didn't actually have "superior amounts of resources and temperate land". That's Latin America you're thinking about. Much of what Europe is today, it owes it to Latin American resources, Latin American land and Latin American labor... and the slave trade. Much of the gold and silver accumulated by Europe from the 16th century onwards came from Latin America, and Europe's industrial development would have probably been impossible without cheap raw materials from European colonies and the capital accumulated by the European bourgeois through the trade of slaves and colonial products.
To survive the coming age, we must adapt, resist populist influences, and root out greedy tyranny from the hallowed halls of government, and as God is my witness, we will survive.
-Audo av Sangua
by Liriena » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:22 pm
Finswedeway wrote:Liriena wrote:What is it with the "Africans sold African slaves" excuse always coming up when discussing European racism and the European slave trade? If I were a human trafficker today, selling Romanian children in the United States, I don't think law enforcement would absolve me if I told them that I originally bought the children from a Romanian crime lord.
Also... the Europeans didn't actually have "superior amounts of resources and temperate land". That's Latin America you're thinking about. Much of what Europe is today, it owes it to Latin American resources, Latin American land and Latin American labor... and the slave trade. Much of the gold and silver accumulated by Europe from the 16th century onwards came from Latin America, and Europe's industrial development would have probably been impossible without cheap raw materials from European colonies and the capital accumulated by the European bourgeois through the trade of slaves and colonial products.
I'm saying it wasn't entirely racism that feuled the slave trade, although it was a major factor. I refuse to defend the slave trade, even for argument's sake, as it was stupid, the whole situation.
Think about geographically why Europe and Asia prospered economically before they went to america. The Americas are tall, whereas Eurasia was wide. Because of the way seasons and Earth works, the fertile land in Eurasia was more spread out, while the Americas had pockets of fertile land while the rest was either covered in sand, jungle, or snow.
Africa, while huge, is mostly desert or jungle. And another thing is that Eurasia and Africa all had animals, like horses, sheep, and cows, which could be domesticated. America had... llamas. Yeah, not very helpful.
With all of these things, it's a foregone conclusion that the old world would be the most technologically advanced.
Europeans are not superior, Europe is (geographically).
Besides, the only reason Europe expanded into the new world was the Ottomans. So... blame them.
by Finswedeway » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:39 pm
Liriena wrote:Finswedeway wrote:I'm saying it wasn't entirely racism that feuled the slave trade, although it was a major factor. I refuse to defend the slave trade, even for argument's sake, as it was stupid, the whole situation.
Think about geographically why Europe and Asia prospered economically before they went to america. The Americas are tall, whereas Eurasia was wide. Because of the way seasons and Earth works, the fertile land in Eurasia was more spread out, while the Americas had pockets of fertile land while the rest was either covered in sand, jungle, or snow.
Africa, while huge, is mostly desert or jungle. And another thing is that Eurasia and Africa all had animals, like horses, sheep, and cows, which could be domesticated. America had... llamas. Yeah, not very helpful.
With all of these things, it's a foregone conclusion that the old world would be the most technologically advanced.
Europeans are not superior, Europe is (geographically).
Besides, the only reason Europe expanded into the new world was the Ottomans. So... blame them.
Umm... the Americas have a lot of fertile land. To this day, a sizeable portion of the world's supply of coffee and sugarcane is cultivated in the Americas. Same goes for cattle, soybeans and various fruits. And that's without getting into mineral resources and fossil fuels.
Europe's technological advancement wasn't exclusively or even mostly the product of it having the best land. As I said, the capital that was used to finance Europe's industrialization largely came from the economic exploitation of the Americas and the slave trade. And Europe's industrial supremacy was partially sustained by European powers openly limiting their colonies' and former colonies' capacity to industrialize.
To survive the coming age, we must adapt, resist populist influences, and root out greedy tyranny from the hallowed halls of government, and as God is my witness, we will survive.
-Audo av Sangua
by Neutraligon » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:42 pm
Finswedeway wrote:Liriena wrote:Umm... the Americas have a lot of fertile land. To this day, a sizeable portion of the world's supply of coffee and sugarcane is cultivated in the Americas. Same goes for cattle, soybeans and various fruits. And that's without getting into mineral resources and fossil fuels.
Europe's technological advancement wasn't exclusively or even mostly the product of it having the best land. As I said, the capital that was used to finance Europe's industrialization largely came from the economic exploitation of the Americas and the slave trade. And Europe's industrial supremacy was partially sustained by European powers openly limiting their colonies' and former colonies' capacity to industrialize.
Yes, they do. But cattle and everything else aren't native to America. That's pretty much the deciding factor; domestic animals.
Europeans did not exploit the people of America, they were mostly dead after a few years. The bubonic plague wiped out 90% of the natives, so there weren't really people to exploit. Even then, they were more likely to run away as they had homes to run to. African slaves were used instead, as if they ran away, they would have nowhere to go.
But yeah everything else you said was right, maybe i just misread your message.
by Liriena » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:51 pm
Finswedeway wrote:Liriena wrote:Umm... the Americas have a lot of fertile land. To this day, a sizeable portion of the world's supply of coffee and sugarcane is cultivated in the Americas. Same goes for cattle, soybeans and various fruits. And that's without getting into mineral resources and fossil fuels.
Europe's technological advancement wasn't exclusively or even mostly the product of it having the best land. As I said, the capital that was used to finance Europe's industrialization largely came from the economic exploitation of the Americas and the slave trade. And Europe's industrial supremacy was partially sustained by European powers openly limiting their colonies' and former colonies' capacity to industrialize.
Yes, they do. But cattle and everything else aren't native to America. That's pretty much the deciding factor; domestic animals.
Europeans did not exploit the people of America, they were mostly dead after a few years. The bubonic plague wiped out 90% of the natives, so there weren't really people to exploit. Even then, they were more likely to run away as they had homes to run to. African slaves were used instead, as if they ran away, they would have nowhere to go.
But yeah everything else you said was right, maybe i just misread your message.
by Sovaal » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:58 pm
Major-Tom wrote:well yeah, it's the context and symbolism, obviously. you ever see a neo nazi sorta shindig and think of progressivism? nah.
Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Republics of the Solar Union, Tillania