Black college student hangs Confederate Flag in his dorm room

[Tawnos]

I just love reading when Tawnos gets his panties or thong up in a bunch over squares and rectangles

G String.

The real issue, for me, is that people claim to support "heritage, not hate." However, if pressed, they can't tell you (naval) jack shiat about what they're meaning to stand up for. Generally, there's some vague handwaving about state's rights, but that doesn't stand under even basic scrutiny. Add to it that they fly a flag which, if it's going to be anything, is related to warring with ourselves, and it's just sad. If they're going to play the heritage card, fly the blood-stained banner. More than that, understand that the south didn't really care about states rights - they cared about preserving an economic status quo in the face of changing world market conditions. That point is reflected most prominently in their constitution, and it's only in the revisionist view of the south's history that you can even begin to claim that it was about state's rights.

So no, I'm not really getting my g string (enjoy that mental image) in a knot over the shape of the flag, but over the fact that the chosen flag is discordant with the expressed reason for flying it.

 

[Tawnos]

So, the issue is whether or not a black man can be a southern red neck racist. Interesting conundrum.

Clayton Bigsby?

Do note, though, that I wasn't talking about racism. I was talking about slavery.

 

[georg jetson]

Clayton Bigsby?

Do note, though, that I wasn't talking about racism. I was talking about slavery.

You also thought you were talking about squares and not triangles. geez...

 

[PrayingForWar]

Sorry, personal experience tells me different.

I've had neo-Confederates try to justify slavery to me. They didn't even waste time on the fairy story that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Can there be any more stupid, futile endeavor than to try to justify racially based, chattel slavery on the basis of biblical reading, to a Black agnostic?

You actually found neanderthals? I think you should have captured them and turned them over to science. You might have gotten an award for anthropology.

 

[OC for ME]

Confederacy = slavery = racism, always been that way, always will be that way, to some folks, here in America.

 

[KBCraig]

Confederacy = slavery = racism, always been that way, always will be that way, to some folks, here in America.

That's true. Some ignorant folks are determined to remain ignorant.

 

[Tawnos]

Confederacy = slavery = racism, always been that way, always will be that way, to some folks, here in America.

Yes to slavery, no to racism. I see a high rate of correlation to racism, but I don't see it as inextricably linked to the CSA. Slavery, though, was.

 

[Deanimator]

Yes to slavery, no to racism. I see a high rate of correlation to racism, but I don't see it as inextricably linked to the CSA. Slavery, though, was.

The American version of chattel slavery was deeply racist. Hence no White slaves. In response to a neo-Confederate's suggestion of repatriation, I made the counter offer of selling Southern Whites as slaves to either the Ottoman Turks or the Manchus. Strange how that turned slavery from a sacrament into an abomination in the blink of an eye!

The preservation of slavery was indeed the central, overriding consideration in the creation of the Confederacy.

Of course both North and South were highly racist. It just wasn't against the law to vocally NOT be racist in the North.

 

[since9]

You actually found neanderthals? I think you should have captured them and turned them over to science. You might have gotten an award for anthropology.

"An estimated 1 to 4 percent of the DNA in Europeans and Asians (i.e. French, Chinese and Papua probands) is non-modern, and shared with ancient Neanderthal DNA rather than with Sub-Saharan Africans (i.e. Yoruba and San probands)." - Source: R. E. Green et al. (2010). "A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome". Science 328 (5979): 710–722.

 

[ManInBlack]

The ignorance of some on this issue continues to astound me. Some facts:

1) The War Between the States was not a true civil war. A civil war involves two factions fighting for control over the same polity. The South was never trying to gain control over the United States government; rather, they simply sought to secede according to accepted principles of self-determination. Like it or not, the War Between the States was a war of independence in the same tradition as the American Revolution.

2) States' rights was an issue, and slavery was a mere subset of that issue. However, the greater issue is whether there would be limited government according to the Constitution or limitless government according to the new and perverse doctrine of federal power.

3) Abraham Lincoln was like George W. Bush on steroids when it came to destroying individual liberty. In fact, I would argue that no other American president, with the possible exception of FDR, was worse in that regard (although Obama is giving it the ol' college try).

 

[KBCraig]

+1 to MIB

 

[Tawnos]

The ignorance of some on this issue continues to astound me. Some facts:

1) The War Between the States was not a true civil war. A civil war involves two factions fighting for control over the same polity. The South was never trying to gain control over the United States government; rather, they simply sought to secede according to accepted principles of self-determination. Like it or not, the War Between the States was a war of independence in the same tradition as the American Revolution.

2) States' rights was an issue, and slavery was a mere subset of that issue. However, the greater issue is whether there would be limited government according to the Constitution or limitless government according to the new and perverse doctrine of federal power.

3) Abraham Lincoln was like George W. Bush on steroids when it came to destroying individual liberty. In fact, I would argue that no other American president, with the possible exception of FDR, was worse in that regard (although Obama is giving it the ol' college try).

Citations? I already cited why 2 is totally false. 3 is an opinion, so not fact, and 1 is about the only thing debatable.

 

[Q-Tip]

...Hence no White slaves....

False.

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-forgotten-white-slaves-part-ii-nehesy/

 

[Deanimator]

The ignorance of some on this issue continues to astound me. Some facts:

1) The War Between the States was not a true civil war. A civil war involves two factions fighting for control over the same polity. The South was never trying to gain control over the United States government; rather, they simply sought to secede according to accepted principles of self-determination. Like it or not, the War Between the States was a war of independence in the same tradition as the American Revolution.

The Civil War most certainly WAS a civil war.

The South was not content to practice slavery south of the Mason-Dixon line. Their demands were FAR more extensive:

• expansion of slavery into all of the territories, including California where a campaign of terrorism was conducted to that end
• abridgement of 1st Amendment freedoms to condemn slavery, in the NORTH
• forced dragooning of NORTHERNERS into slave catchers (Fugitive Slave Law)
• forced rendition of ACCUSED escaped slaves without benefit of due process
• the "right" to transit free states with slaves, and to go to free states with slaves

The South was not content to practice slavery itself, but was fanatically dedicated to coopting the rest of the nation into the slave system, by force if necessary.

Pro-slavery forces sought to preserve and expand slavery EVERYWHERE, and to do so by CONTROLLING all of the states, slave or free.

If that's not a CIVIL WAR, then the term has no meaning at all.

Defenders of the Confederacy should be honest and admit that they're really defenders of SLAVERY.

Their position would still be utterly despicable, but at least they'd hold it honestly.

 

[Deanimator]

False.

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta...es/the-forgotten-white-slaves-part-ii-nehesy/

Ah, it's always amusing when neo-Confederates dabble in Marxism to defend slavery.

And what part of "wage slavery" was HEREDITARY???

Watching people trying to defend slavery with such pathetic sophistry is like watching members describe NAMBLA as a "civil rights" organization...

 

[KBCraig]

The Civil War most certainly WAS a civil war.

The South was not content to practice slavery south of the Mason-Dixon line. Their demands were FAR more extensive:

They demanded, didn't get their way, and they seceeded and formed a new nation.

A war between nations cannot be a civil war, by definition.

 

[Q-Tip]

I did not defend slavery. I simply pointed out that people of all races have been enslaved in America.

Formal secession, wrote their own Constitution, elected a President...yup, sounds like a separate country to me. Just like the U.S. seceding from Britain, though perhaps for purer motives.

 

[Deanimator]

They demanded, didn't get their way, and they seceeded and formed a new nation.

Merely a continuation of the civil war through open warfare instead of the previous campaign of terrorism.

What was the status of slavery on territory controlled by the Confederacy? Yeah, I thought so.

 

[Deanimator]

I did not defend slavery. I simply pointed out that people of all races have been enslaved in America.

And what were the proportions of White "slavery" to Black slavery?

The South's motives were as "pure" as those of the Japanese in China.

 

[Q-Tip]

I don't know the proportion, but the articles I posted break down the numbers. It's high enough to be significant though, I can assure you that.

I meant the U.S. withdrawing from England perhaps had better motives than the Confederacy. Sorry if that was worded funny.