Confederate = Racist?

[Sasquatch]

I noticed another mention of some people being "racists" because they have Confederate flag as a bumper sticker recently, so I thought I'd throw this topic out, to kinda see who knows what's up.

So what do you think? Is the battle flag of the Confederate States of America actually a racist symbol? Is it simply used by racists, without reflecting its true meaning? Were the Confederate States of America racist? Discuss.

[Rhaps]

I live in the south, so maybe I can help
The Confederacy was made to rebel against the Union, for the Union was set on abolishing slavery. Since slaves were mostly African American, the thought that they must be racist was drilled into a firm stereotype. However, in most cases this is true, as 90% of the rednecks I encounter are racist. However, the other 10% who have a Confederate flag and deem themselves redneck have no problem with African Americans. They have the flag for it symbolizes the nation of the South they support so greatly.
So, basically it means they're racist in some cases, but otherwise they aren't. Rednecks are proud creatures, so they will advertise their dream nation at most costs, and their dream nation was partly made from racism. More of laziness and business interests, but racism plays a good part. It all depends on the individual.

[che]

To many people that symbol of the confederate flag stands for pro-slavery. It's offensive to see, because it no longer exists. It is now the United States of America, undivided between the north and south. Or should be...

[Clint]

A common misconception is that the Civil War was about slavery. The Union's mission wasn't to abolish slavery. The only reason why the Union freed the slaves in the first place was so that they could have more arms in the military. The war was fought over secession. It had nothing to do with race.

But of course, there are many uneducated rednecks who feel that the Confederacy stood for slavery, and use the flag as a symbol of racism. Those people may feel that they are giving southern pride, but in actuality, viewing the flag that their so proud of as a symbol of hatred is disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of brave men who fought and gave their lives for the ideal of the Confederacy, which was freedom.

[Alpha]

I see it as being associated with racism, but also nationalism. Whether that means it must be racist in all instances is debatable, but this is just my perception. I've seen images where the KKK and the Confederate flag are portrayed as synonymous.

I never studied American history at high school (aside from c.1960s civil rights, it wasn't even an option), so what I do know about the flag as a symbol is probably very much based around how it is portrayed in media.

[Rocky]

So I guess putting a tattoo of "Satan Rocks!" on my ass makes me a good ambassador of God..?

[Sasquatch]

The Confederacy was made to rebel against the Union, for the Union was set on abolishing slavery.

Wrong. Not just wrong, but bullshit. Slavery was of no importance to the Confederacy, and their leaders knew that it would be faded out within the next decade or so anyway. The only reason Lincoln freed slaves -- and keep in mind, the Emancipation Proclamation did not "free the slaves", it only freed slaves in rebelling states, which were at the time not a part of the United States -- was so that they could conscript them into service for the Union. Slavery did not end in the United States until after the war -- that was the 13th Amendment. The Confederacy, on the other hand, had volunteer soldiers, including blacks. (Check out the 1st Louisiana Native Guard, among many others. The Confederacy had thousands of black soldiers -- and all volunteers, not conscripted.) Of course, you don't hear much about them, because it wouldn't fit the bullshit claim that the war was all about slavery and those racist Southerners.

However, in most cases this is true, as 90% of the rednecks I encounter are racist.

Most stupid kids you encounter in high school are racist. Most rednecks are not.

However, the other 10% who have a Confederate flag and deem themselves redneck have no problem with African Americans. They have the flag for it symbolizes the nation of the South they support so greatly.

They have the flag because it symbolizes what the Confederacy stood for. Not simply that it existed, but that it stood for smaller federal government with more state control.

Rednecks are proud creatures, so they will advertise their dream nation at most costs, and their dream nation was partly made from racism. More of laziness and business interests, but racism plays a good part. It all depends on the individual.

It wasn't racism or laziness at all, it was freedom -- which, of course, will include freedom in business. Have you really not been taught this in any history class yet?

But of course, there are many uneducated rednecks who feel that the Confederacy stood for slavery, and use the flag as a symbol of racism. Those people may feel that they are giving southern pride, but in actuality, viewing the flag that their so proud of as a symbol of hatred is disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of brave men who fought and gave their lives for the ideal of the Confederacy, which was freedom.

Unfortunately, that is true. But do a handful of dumbasses like the KKK waving the Confederate flag around and trying to use it as a symbol or racism actually make it a symbol of racism? I mean, we're not talking about the Nazi party taking over the swastika, this is a bunch of dumbasses trying to take over the Confederate flag. They might use it as a symbol for racism, but does that make it a symbol for racism when it's used in other contexts?

EDIT: (So I don't have to make another post to address this point, and since I'm already editing this post anyway.)

Well as I am in high school that is pretty much the only contact with them I have had, plus the "friends" of my father portray no differently. Also, that was what I was taught. Thank you for enlightening me from a biased school system

Honestly, most of what I learned about the Confederacy wasn't from school. Especially in the South. They can't teach factual history about it (I've actually had discussions with high school history teachers on this subject) because some people will get all butthurt about it. Areas with higher black populations will teach more that the Confederacy was formed only to preserve slavery, and that heroic Abraham Lincoln and his Union saved the country and freed the slaves. They're a little more accurate in the north, but thanks to scare tactics of race pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, they can't take a non-biased approach.

[Rhaps]

Well as I am in high school that is pretty much the only contact with them I have had, plus the "friends" of my father portray no differently. Also, that was what I was taught. Thank you for enlightening me from a biased school system

[Jin]

but that it stood for smaller federal government with more state control.

This.

While I disagree that that slavery was of no importance to the Confederacy, its importance is most certainly overplayed. State rights versus federal intervention (the wording of these two phrases speaks volumes) were far more important factors in the civil war than slavery and as such, the flag should represent that more than it does slavery. However, this isn't about what the flag should represent, but rather what it does represent. Incorrect as it may be, the flag does symbolize slavery to many, many people. Whether it is racist or not therefore should be based on intent rather than on the symbol itself. If one intends it as a racist symbol, then it's a racist symbol, if one does not, then it is not. Of course, this will lead to many misunderstandings, but that's really unavoidable.

[Zargabaath]

There is the United States of America that has its own flag. There is no need to fly a flag that's government tried to secede; doing so disrespects America. Northerners do not fly a special flag of their own. There shouldn't be needless division within the country, if they are proud to be a southern American fly the America flag - the flag of their country.

The confederate flag has a lot of stigma against it, one of those is that it represents racism and to an extent that is true. Racism was a major underlying reason for the war, it may not have been on the surface but the actions taken, by the Confederacy, were influenced by their racist behavior. States Rights vs Federal Rights or as Jinn put it Federal Intervention has racist undertones.

The Southern states wanted to do things their own way, which included keeping the status quo (i.e., slavery). If the people in their states [the southern states] had voted to abolish slavery then so be it, though highly unlikely, they did not want to simply get rid of slavery. Why? Because they were already losing to the North economically but if they were to compete in any way they needed cheap labor, labor in the form of slavery; still a lot of slave-owners kept their slaves somewhat healthy. A slave was an important asset to the plantation owner and a slave that couldn't work wasn't good for their owner. Plus, most slave-owners didn't have the huge plantation with many slaves, they had a few slaves and the owners worked the fields with them.

If the slavery was abolished they, the slaves, would have been U.S. citizens and the men would have been able to vote. The slave population greatly outnumbered the white population in the south; if the slaves were able to vote the vested powers of the South would have been kicked out with either more black-friendly, white politicians or possibly black officials. The south did not want the latter to especially happen and the southern elite did not want to lose their power to the "blacks". Furthermore, with blacks freed and able to vote, their power in Congress may have been diminished, most likely, and the policies that the southerners wanted would never make it through because of the power shift. Future presidents would have had a friendlier disposition to blacks which would have been another avenue where southerners lost power. In actuality the only democratic president from 1860 - 1912, an era of Republican political domination, was Grover Cleveland who was elected in 1885 & 1893. So my assessment is not far off from what transpired.

If a German person born during the reign of Hitler fly the Swastika because that was the German flag of the time and were flying it because of national pride, which was huge during that time in Nazi Germany, would that be ok? The swastika has many negative connotations with similarities to the Confederate flag, but if it because of southern or german pride then what the hell, it's not "offensive". Child please. German and southern Americans have a flag they can fly that is not offensively racist.

The Confederate flag does represent racism, it represents the culture of the South which racism was a huge part of and their fight to keep the status quo, slavery included, alive. As for rednecks, some are and some aren't racist.

[Sasquatch]

There is the United States of America that has its own flag. There is no need to fly a flag that's government tried to secede; doing so disrespects America.

The Confederate States of America did not "try" to secede, they did secede, and were their own country for a few years. So you're saying that nobody should fly a flag that isn't an American flag, no matter where they're from or what kinds of heritage or culture they want to respect?

Northerners do not fly a special flag of their own. There shouldn't be needless division within the country, if they are proud to be a southern American fly the America flag - the flag of their country.

Good point -- no more state flags! We can't have people from different states being divided!

The confederate flag has a lot of stigma against it, one of those is that it represents racism and to an extent that is true. Racism was a major underlying reason for the war, it may not have been on the surface but the actions taken, by the Confederacy, were influenced by their racist behavior.

For people who know their history, ideas and actions of the C.S.A. were no more racist or influenced by racism than those of the Union.

States Rights vs Federal Rights or as Jinn put it Federal Intervention has racist undertones.

No, it doesn't have racist undertones. It has undertones of "we're tired of one side of the country buggering the other side, imposing unfair laws and taxes, and profiting from the other side while they struggle."

The Southern states wanted to do things their own way, which included keeping the status quo (i.e., slavery).

So did the North -- which is why they didn't outlaw slavery until after the Civil War. The reason for the war wasn't to stop slavery at all -- the South wanted to get away from being used and abused by the rest of the country, and the North couldn't let that happen.

If the people in their states [the southern states] had voted to abolish slavery then so be it, though highly unlikely, they did not want to simply get rid of slavery.

If only there was a law passed that made it impossible to make slavery illegal ... No wait! A Constitutional Amendment, even better! People in the Southern states would have voted for a Constitutional Amendment that made it impossible to illegalize slavery, right? Congressmen -- Senators and Representatives -- would have voted for a Constitutional Amendment that made it impossible to illegalize slavery, right? RIGHT?

... Like this one?

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

That's the Corwin Amendment, proposed and passed (by a Congress acting without seven Southern states -- try telling me again that the North didn't want slavery) in 1861. If you didn't realize it, "persons held to labor or service" refers to slavery. This Constitutional Amendment kept the federal government from interfering with slavery laws. And it passed. Seven Southern states ignored it -- because it didn't matter nearly as much as the other wrongs of the Union -- and it still passed, which means the vast majority of the North wanted it passed, as well. Hell, even Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment in his inaugural speech.

Why? Because they were already losing to the North economically but if they were to compete in any way they needed cheap labor, labor in the form of slavery ...

The South was not losing to the North economically -- the North desperately needed the South economically, which is why they invaded. What the North did have is industry. They could build things faster -- this contributed greatly to their successes in the war. But no, the South's economy was definitely not inferior to that of the North.

... still a lot of slave-owners kept their slaves somewhat healthy. A slave was an important asset to the plantation owner and a slave that couldn't work wasn't good for their owner. Plus, most slave-owners didn't have the huge plantation with many slaves, they had a few slaves and the owners worked the fields with them.

And many slaves were white or Asian. And many slave owners were Asian or black. Hell, it's not like we captured a bunch of Africans -- most slaves were bought and traded from African slave owners. And while they didn't have "slavery" in the North, they did have "indentured servitude" in many forms, and most were worse than slavery. If you worked in a sweatshop for a few pennies a day and got sick or died, they could replace you. If you were "working off" your debt and your landlord/manager kept finding ways to put you further into debt, you were screwed. As you mentioned, at least slave owners tried to keep their slaves healthy. (And happy, too -- families weren't broken up anywhere near as often as portrayed, because people would work better with their families around them than after they've had to leave them.) Slaves were given food, they were given places to live, and they were kept healthy -- that is quite different from many people in the North, who were slaves of different sorts and different names.

If the slavery was abolished they, the slaves, would have been U.S. citizens and the men would have been able to vote.

That didn't come until much later. Women weren't enslaved, but they still didn't get to vote for a hundred and fifty years after this country started. What makes you think black people would have been able to vote right away after they were freed?

The slave population greatly outnumbered the white population in the south ...

... No, they didn't. Not by a long shot.

... if the slaves were able to vote the vested powers of the South would have been kicked out with either more black-friendly, white politicians or possibly black officials. The south did not want the latter to especially happen and the southern elite did not want to lose their power to the "blacks". Furthermore, with blacks freed and able to vote, their power in Congress may have been diminished, most likely, and the policies that the southerners wanted would never make it through because of the power shift. Future presidents would have had a friendlier disposition to blacks which would have been another avenue where southerners lost power.

It wasn't until the Fifteenth Amendment passed in 1870 that blacks got the right to vote. And you should know that it wasn't until the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s that they really got the right to vote -- before then, they were harassed and taxed and tested to disqualify them from voting (in the North as well). So no, the end of slavery wasn't what gave blacks the right to vote -- and Southerners knew that. They knew that the North didn't care for black people either, and that they wouldn't give up any power to anybody with darker skin. Your accusations of Southern racism completely ignore the equivalent Northern racism.

If a German person born during the reign of Hitler fly the Swastika because that was the German flag of the time and were flying it because of national pride, which was huge during that time in Nazi Germany, would that be ok? The swastika has many negative connotations with similarities to the Confederate flag, but if it because of southern or german pride then what the hell, it's not "offensive". Child please. German and southern Americans have a flag they can fly that is not offensively racist.

Are you honestly trying to compare the Nazis burning six million Jews and another ten million people, to the Confederate States of America allowing slavery? Are you friggin' serious, kid?

The Confederate flag does represent racism, it represents the culture of the South which racism was a huge part of and their fight to keep the status quo, slavery included, alive. As for rednecks, some are and some aren't racist.

Does the American flag represent racism? How about an old American flag -- with thirteen stars, or twenty-two, or even forty-eight? The U.S. flag didn't get the 49th and 50th stars until 1959 when we picked up Alaska and Hawaii -- that was before the Civil Rights movement. Do those flags represent racism as well? Or do they stand for something else?

[Zargabaath]

The Confederate States of America did not "try" to secede, they did secede, and were their own country for a few years. So you're saying that nobody should fly a flag that isn't an American flag, no matter where they're from or what kinds of heritage or culture they want to respect?

It's called a Civil War for a reason. The states that tried to secede failed to secure their secession. And great job at taking my words out of context. I was talking about the Confederate flag, not any flag that is not the American flag. If someone is Italian-American then they could fly an Italian and an American flag, but someone born in America flying a flag that tried to rebel against their country is disrespectful.

At the same time, with your last sentence are your trying to support the flying of the swastika, the soviet flag, or the Chinese flag for example? The heritage of the South was multiple things including deep racism, why would anyone want to respect that culture. By supporting the flying of the Confederate flag they disrespect those who suffered underneath it's people ( yes the flag most commonly associated with the Confederacy wasn't made till 1863) and by attempting to disguise it as "proud heritage" that try to legitimize the South's actions.

Good point -- no more state flags! We can't have people from different states being divided!

Yeeeeeaaaaaaah. How often do you see state flags flown and not by any state or municpal government buildings? How many private citizens have you seen fly their state flags? In my experience - 18 states - I haven't seen any state flag flown that I can remember. The times I do see state flags may be on the license plate, of course that isn't an actual flag. There aren't people in Virginia with the state flag attached to their lifted pick-up truck, how bout in Wisconsin? How many tattoos have you seen of state flags on people?

For people who know their history, ideas and actions of the C.S.A. were no more racist or influenced by racism than those of the Union.

So the abolitionists of the North really don't want to end slavery? Huh.

No, it doesn't have racist undertones. It has undertones of "we're tired of one side of the country buggering the other side, imposing unfair laws and taxes, and profiting from the other side while they struggle."

How can they be struggling when you say later in your post that "The South was not losing to the North economically -- the North desperately needed the South economically, which is why they invaded"; that seems contradictory. If they are doing just as good as the North - and the North was doing well - then how could they be struggling?

While I don't really support tariffs - free market & all - the tariffs were a coin. If there were tariffs the North would benefit because it make their products appear cheaper than the imported European goods, the same-time the South would suffer. Without tariffs the South would do better while the North would feel the pain. How these laws were able to pass is because of immigrants coming to the U.S. and settling in the more industrial North which also caused fear in the Southern Congressman because the North's numbers were swelling and they feared that legislation the was Southern friendly would not get passed.

By the late 1850s, the fear of Northern domination in national economic policy, combined with the desire to maintain Southern institutions (including slavery), became a major influence on the people who eventually chose to secede from the Union. Here there is political motivation that which affects economic policy and once more racist undertones. (Economics and the Civil War)

So did the North -- which is why they didn't outlaw slavery until after the Civil War. The reason for the war wasn't to stop slavery at all -- the South wanted to get away from being used and abused by the rest of the country, and the North couldn't let that happen.

Right, Lincoln's initial plan was to just get the states to come back into the Union, however starting with the Emancipation Proclamation did Lincoln begin the plan to abolish slavery.

If only there was a law passed that made it impossible to make slavery illegal ... No wait! A Constitutional Amendment, even better! People in the Southern states would have voted for a Constitutional Amendment that made it impossible to illegalize slavery, right? Congressmen -- Senators and Representatives -- would have voted for a Constitutional Amendment that made it impossible to illegalize slavery, right? RIGHT?

... Like this one?

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

That's the Corwin Amendment, proposed and passed (by a Congress acting without seven Southern states -- try telling me again that the North didn't want slavery) in 1861. If you didn't realize it, "persons held to labor or service" refers to slavery. This Constitutional Amendment kept the federal government from interfering with slavery laws. And it passed. Seven Southern states ignored it -- because it didn't matter nearly as much as the other wrongs of the Union -- and it still passed, which means the vast majority of the North wanted it passed, as well. Hell, even Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment in his inaugural speech.

I'm repeating a bit, but yeah. The Corwin Amendment was proposed and passed by Congress, just before outbreak of the Civil War, as a last-ditch effort to avert said war. As I said Lincoln's goal in the beginning was to have the seceding states rejoin the Union. However this is one minor detail that you fail to mention - you trickster. You, oh so conveniently, fail to mention that this Constitutional Amendment was only ratified by two states (Ohio and Maryland) meaning it fell short of the necessary three-quarters majority of the states in order to become a part of the U.S. Constitution - as of today it is still pending therefore not in affect.

So in fact your whole "just as racist North" is debunked. The Northerners, who greatly favored abolition, did not support this Constitutional Amendment that would supported slave laws. Otherwise the Corwin Amendment would have gotten the necessary amount to be ratifiied; if it had been ratified, the Corwin Amendment would have been the 13th Amendment. "Try telling me again that the North didn't want slavery) in 1861"; I just did; the Congressmen passed it as a means to preserve the Union, however, the citizens of the Union, the North, did not share the same view as their elected officials.

The South was not losing to the North economically -- the North desperately needed the South economically, which is why they invaded. What the North did have is industry. They could build things faster -- this contributed greatly to their successes in the war. But no, the South's economy was definitely not inferior to that of the North.

Once again, if they weren't losing how could they be struggling? Of course that is irrelevant - the South only had 10% of the country's capital in 1860; compared to 90% in the North I think that is a huge difference. The North had 5 times as many factories and over 10 times the amount of factory workers; as well as 90% of the skilled labor was in the North. Yeeeeaaaah, they were getting beat; they - the South - were "struggling" after all.

And many slaves were white or Asian. And many slave owners were Asian or black.

If you could provide a source for the Asian slaves that will be cool. As for the "many" Asian and Black slave owners is laughable. The actual percentile of black slave-owners is minuscule. There were around 380,000 white slave-owning families while there were around 4,000-5,000 black slave-owners; which equates to .01%.

Hell, it's not like we captured a bunch of Africans -- most slaves were bought and traded from African slave owners.

Yeah, we didn't capture them, the Dutch did. Unfortunately, a lot of Black Americans do not realize that most slaves brought over were bartered for by their own village chiefs.

And while they didn't have "slavery" in the North, they did have "indentured servitude" in many forms, and most were worse than slavery. If you worked in a sweatshop for a few pennies a day and got sick or died, they could replace you.

They could replace them because of the mass amounts of immigrants pouring into the North which kept the labor market competitive with keeping wages from going quickly - because immigrants were cheap labor and the labor itself wasn't that skilled. A few pennies sounds like the wage of the cheapest of labor during that time - they weren't getting the big bucks, let alone coins back in that period.

If you were "working off" your debt and your landlord/manager kept finding ways to put you further into debt, you were screwed. As you mentioned, at least slave owners tried to keep their slaves healthy. (And happy, too -- families weren't broken up anywhere near as often as portrayed, because people would work better with their families around them than after they've had to leave them.) Slaves were given food, they were given places to live, and they were kept healthy -- that is quite different from many people in the North, who were slaves of different sorts and different names.

That didn't come until much later. Women weren't enslaved, but they still didn't get to vote for a hundred and fifty years after this country started. What makes you think black people would have been able to vote right away after they were freed?

While not right away there is the 15th Amendment.

It wasn't until the Fifteenth Amendment passed in 1870 that blacks got the right to vote. And you should know that it wasn't until the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s that they really got the right to vote -- before then, they were harassed and taxed and tested to disqualify them from voting (in the North as well). So no, the end of slavery wasn't what gave blacks the right to vote -- and Southerners knew that. They knew that the North didn't care for black people either, and that they wouldn't give up any power to anybody with darker skin. Your accusations of Southern racism completely ignore the equivalent Northern racism.

There were actually more blacks were voted into some government office during 1865-1880 than in any time during American history. There was enough federal support for black voters and white Republicans to in the South so that they could vote and rule in confidence; Grant even sent troops restore the elected mayor. It was when Hayes became president, narrowly, that he withdrew the troops as a move to appease the South. Then the South began to enact their stringent laws against black voters.

Are you honestly trying to compare the Nazis burning six million Jews and another ten million people, to the Confederate States of America allowing slavery? Are you friggin' serious, kid?

I see you can't make the correlation between the two. Both oppressed people, violating their rights as humans to live their own life. I was more so comparing the Nazi's treatment of the Jews and others, very crappy, which the slave-owners did as well, as mentioned earlier their suppressive nature of other ethnicities and race (which is the most barbaric form of collectivism) and the people's pride in their "country". The Confederacy is not a clone of Nazi Germany but there are similarities, you just have to be able to spot them.

Does the American flag represent racism? How about an old American flag -- with thirteen stars, or twenty-two, or even forty-eight? The U.S. flag didn't get the 49th and 50th stars until 1959 when we picked up Alaska and Hawaii -- that was before the Civil Rights movement. Do those flags represent racism as well? Or do they stand for something else?

The American flag does not represent racism. It represents the freedom that each individual has the right to, though is slipping over the decades with forms of socialism. The founders knew that racism had to addressed, but they couldn't do it at the birth of the country - unfortunately. Also, the country's mantra was correct however, it was the people - the Southerners mostly - who did not realize the actuality of it. Even now people are still wrong and confused over the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". Yes it said man which was another error, for through their logic of coming to that truth they should have extended it to all people. The founders were revolutionary for their time for their thoughts however, they did make some mistakes - they are after all - not divine.

[Sasquatch]

It's called a Civil War for a reason. The states that tried to secede failed to secure their secession.

It's wrongly called a civil war. A civil war is two powers fighting for control of the same country. The American "Civil War", aka War Between the States, aka War of Northern Aggression, was about the Confederate States of America separating themselves from the United States of America, then the U.S.A. invading a foreign country, occupying it, and assimilating it into its own country.

And great job at taking my words out of context. I was talking about the Confederate flag, not any flag that is not the American flag. If someone is Italian-American then they could fly an Italian and an American flag, but someone born in America flying a flag that tried to rebel against their country is disrespectful.

America has fought Italy before, remember? Who are you to say where the line is on what is and isn't "proper"? And are you saying that flying a C.S.A. flag anywhere BUT America is alright?

At the same time, with your last sentence are your trying to support the flying of the swastika, the soviet flag, or the Chinese flag for example?

If you're trying to compare the C.S.A. to Nazi Germany, the USSR, or China, you're out of your friggin' gourd.

The heritage of the South was multiple things including deep racism, why would anyone want to respect that culture.

Everything was multiple things including racism at that point in history. Including the U.S.A. And people want to respect that culture because it's more respectable than that of the Union at the time, and presently. Small federal government, and small government in general. Rights saved for the States, just like the Constitution says. Rights saved for the individual, just like the Constitution says.

By supporting the flying of the Confederate flag they disrespect those who suffered underneath it's people ( yes the flag most commonly associated with the Confederacy wasn't made till 1863) and by attempting to disguise it as "proud heritage" that try to legitimize the South's actions.

Their actions are and were already legitimate. Are you trying to say that the South is evil for supporting their right to slavery, or the South is evil for actually having slavery? Because at that point in history, very few people cared -- and the federal government of the U.S.A. didn't want to end slavery because it was putting money into their pockets.

Yeeeeeaaaaaaah. How often do you see state flags flown and not by any state or municpal government buildings? How many private citizens have you seen fly their state flags? In my experience - 18 states - I haven't seen any state flag flown that I can remember. The times I do see state flags may be on the license plate, of course that isn't an actual flag. There aren't people in Virginia with the state flag attached to their lifted pick-up truck, how bout in Wisconsin? How many tattoos have you seen of state flags on people?

Most people don't take much pride in their state, because their state hasn't acted extremely different than the states around it. And I don't know if you meant you've lived in 18 states or been through 18 states, but I've lived in five and driven through over half of 'em, and I've seen plenty of state flags flying outside houses. Hell, I can look across the street right now at a private business that flies the Wisconsin flag.

And you can't really use tattoos as much of an argument. Some people get it (or the pattern) because they like to think they're a "rebel", some get it because it "looks cool", and some actually know what the hell it stands for and support that. Still others think it stands for something it doesn't -- such as yourself -- and wrongly support that.

So the abolitionists of the North really don't want to end slavery? Huh.

No, the three percent of the North that were abolitionists actually did want to end slavery. And yes, that was 3% -- only 3% of the North were actual abolitionists. Before Nat Turner's rebellion, there were as many abolitionist societies in the South as in the North.

Remember, the Underground Railroad did not start in a free state, it went through to Southern households who helped slaves escape. And the reason it still had to be "underground" in the North was because it was still illegal to help runaway slaves. The State Supreme Court of every Northern state supported the Fugitive Slave Act. But everybody in the North wanted to end slavery, right?

How can they be struggling when you say later in your post that "The South was not losing to the North economically -- the North desperately needed the South economically, which is why they invaded"; that seems contradictory. If they are doing just as good as the North - and the North was doing well - then how could they be struggling?

Because the North was putting tariffs and restrictions on them, taxing them every chance they could. The North was doing well because the South was doing well, and instead of letting the South thrive, they tried to rob them blind. Did you think the socialist movement didn't start until the 1920s? No, it was happening on a much larger scale in the 1850s.

If your argument is that the South's economy was crap, and that they relied on the North, you'd have two open questions. Why would the South want to leave that (when the North was NOT trying to end slavery)? And when they did, if the South dragged the North's economy down, why would the North want them back?

While I don't really support tariffs - free market & all - the tariffs were a coin. If there were tariffs the North would benefit because it make their products appear cheaper than the imported European goods, the same-time the South would suffer. Without tariffs the South would do better while the North would feel the pain. How these laws were able to pass is because of immigrants coming to the U.S. and settling in the more industrial North which also caused fear in the Southern Congressman because the North's numbers were swelling and they feared that legislation the was Southern friendly would not get passed.

By the late 1850s, the fear of Northern domination in national economic policy, combined with the desire to maintain Southern institutions (including slavery), became a major influence on the people who eventually chose to secede from the Union. Here there is political motivation that which affects economic policy and once more racist undertones. (Economics and the Civil War)

You just said that the North benefited from tariffs and the South was hurt by them. Duh. The South was getting screwed while the North profited. That's why the South said, "screw this, we're going to do it ourselves".

And the preservation of slavery was not a "major influence" for secession. Because they didn't need to secede to preserve slavery. And they knew that. They could have stayed with the Union and kept their slaves. I really don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain this to you.

Right, Lincoln's initial plan was to just get the states to come back into the Union, however starting with the Emancipation Proclamation did Lincoln begin the plan to abolish slavery.

First, there wasn't a "plan" to abolish slavery. Second, Lincoln wanted to invade and occupy the C.S.A. because, as even you said, it was supporting the rest of the country's economy. And third, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Not one. It attempted to free slaves in "rebelling states" -- meaning, the United States president wrote an Executive Order freeing people who weren't part of the United States. And the only reason he did this is that he thought it might hurt the South's economy a bit more, and he'd have more blacks to conscript into the Union army.

I'm repeating a bit, but yeah. The Corwin Amendment was proposed and passed by Congress, just before outbreak of the Civil War, as a last-ditch effort to avert said war.

Exactly -- the Union government said, "Don't leave! Here -- we'll let you keep slavery! We won't touch it!" And the South didn't care. Slavery wasn't their goal. How have you not understood this yet?

As I said Lincoln's goal in the beginning was to have the seceding states rejoin the Union. However this is one minor detail that you fail to mention - you trickster. You, oh so conveniently, fail to mention that this Constitutional Amendment was only ratified by two states (Ohio and Maryland) meaning it fell short of the necessary three-quarters majority of the states in order to become a part of the U.S. Constitution - as of today it is still pending therefore not in affect.

The entire point of it was to avert the South's secession. The South didn't want it and seceded anyway. So what would be the point in continuing the process?

So in fact your whole "just as racist North" is debunked. The Northerners, who greatly favored abolition, did not support this Constitutional Amendment that would supported slave laws. Otherwise the Corwin Amendment would have gotten the necessary amount to be ratifiied; if it had been ratified, the Corwin Amendment would have been the 13th Amendment.

The two states that did ratify it right away were in the North -- and you actually missed one, Illinois is in that group too, though theirs might not hold up. If slavery was such a big issue and the North was full of abolitionists, it would have never been ratified in the North, and the South would have ratified it as soon as they could. There is no reason to continue a process to stop secession when it doesn't work -- and it didn't work because the South didn't give a damn about slavery. If they did, they would have rushed to ratify the Corwin Amendment.

The Northerners did not "greatly favor" abolition -- in fact, there were some states where Blacks were simply not allowed. This was not simply state law, but in their state constitutions. There were penalties even for whites who "encouraged" blacks to move into their state in some states, such as Indiana. Illinois and Oregon have extremely racist state constitutions, along with much of the Northeast coast.

Once again, if they weren't losing how could they be struggling? Of course that is irrelevant - the South only had 10% of the country's capital in 1860; compared to 90% in the North I think that is a huge difference. The North had 5 times as many factories and over 10 times the amount of factory workers; as well as 90% of the skilled labor was in the North. Yeeeeaaaah, they were getting beat; they - the South - were "struggling" after all.

If your argument is that the South couldn't stand on its own without the North taking care of it, there was absolutely no reason to try to get them to stay in the Union, or to launch a conscripted military invasion of a foreign country after they already seceded.

If you had a roommate that couldn't pay his rent or buy his own food, would you promise him anything to stay? And when that didn't work and you left anyway, would you kick down the door of his new apartment to drag him back to yours and force him to live with you? Hell no. But that's what you're saying happened between the Union and Confederacy.

If you could provide a source for the Asian slaves that will be cool. As for the "many" Asian and Black slave owners is laughable. The actual percentile of black slave-owners is minuscule. There were around 380,000 white slave-owning families while there were around 4,000-5,000 black slave-owners; which equates to .01%.

First -- learn how to read your calculator, that's 1%, not .01%. Not much, but still quite a few -- I never said that they represented any sizable minority. Second, most Asian slaves (and owners) were in the Western U.S., not the Southeastern. Third, the point still stands -- there were many black and Asian slave owners.

Yeah, we didn't capture them, the Dutch did. Unfortunately, a lot of Black Americans do not realize that most slaves brought over were bartered for by their own village chiefs.

No, the Dutch didn't, either. They bought them. Usually with rum -- trade rum for slaves, trade slaves for sugar, make rum, trade rum for more slaves. Most rum distilleries and textile mills were in the Northeast. That's another reason the North didn't want to end slavery -- they were making a killing off of it. In parts of Tanzania, rough cotton cloth is still known as "americana", because New Englanders would trade it for slaves.

They could replace them because of the mass amounts of immigrants pouring into the North which kept the labor market competitive with keeping wages from going quickly - because immigrants were cheap labor and the labor itself wasn't that skilled. A few pennies sounds like the wage of the cheapest of labor during that time - they weren't getting the big bucks, let alone coins back in that period.

And they still treated them like shit. Which was my point entirely -- which you missed. Entirely.

While not right away there is the 15th Amendment.

... which did not happen immediately after the "Civil War", and as you know, didn't really take effect until the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. So the thought that the North was going to give blacks the right to vote, and the South hated that idea, is bogus.

There were actually more blacks were voted into some government office during 1865-1880 than in any time during American history. There was enough federal support for black voters and white Republicans to in the South so that they could vote and rule in confidence; Grant even sent troops restore the elected mayor. It was when Hayes became president, narrowly, that he withdrew the troops as a move to appease the South. Then the South began to enact their stringent laws against black voters.

They were not voted into office -- they were "placed" into office. In the South. The government would choose who would be the new office-holder, and it didn't matter who "won" the election. The New Orleans mayor that Grant sent troops to "restore" was not a mayor elected by the people, but placed by Grant himself.

Notice, they weren't placed into office in the North? And neither were they voted in? If your claim is that the North wasn't racist at all, why were there absolutely no (or extremely few) black public officials in the North? Why weren't there any before the war, when you claim they weren't discriminated against in the North?

For that matter -- if you claim the North wasn't racist, why would they elect somebody like Lincoln, who was extremely racist? Or have you not seen any of Lincoln's statements on race? Or are you one of the ignorant masses that believe the South left because the North wanted to end slavery, and Lincoln saved the day by freeing slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation?

I see you can't make the correlation between the two.

No, I can't. I see absolutely no correlation between a group of people who forced others to work for them like property and a group of people who ruthlessly raped and slaughtered thirteen million Jews, queers, gypsies, communists, and anybody else who disagreed with them. And simply "seeing" that correlation -- meaning, making up that correlation because somebody is out of ammunition for their debate, so they fall back on Godwin's Law -- is utterly moronic.

The American flag does not represent racism. It represents the freedom that each individual has the right to, though is slipping over the decades with forms of socialism.

It never has represented racism? The American government has never been racist? You sure?

The founders knew that racism had to addressed, but they couldn't do it at the birth of the country - unfortunately.

Says who? You? Some of the Founders owned slaves. Nothing they wrote extended rights to blacks. The Founding Fathers were as racist as anybody else at the time.

I'm really not seeing what the problem in understanding is here. The South had problems with the federal government. The North tried a few things -- including promising not to mess with slavery -- to get them to stay. They left anyway. The North invaded them. How can anybody in their right mind try to claim that slavery was a major cause of secession? Especially when not seceding would have guaranteed that they could keep slavery around?

EDIT: Quotes from Abraham Lincoln, the leader of the "non-racist" United States of America, and the man the Northern States voted for by large majority.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. ... he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color--perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments."
-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

"Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union."
-Letter to James C. Conkling, dated 23 August 1863

"Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you that once, as a friend, and still I hope not as an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington."

-To Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America. Springfield, IL, Dec. 22, 1860

Meanwhile, General Robert E. Lee came out with: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."

And Ulysses S Grant (a Union Officer, though at the time of the quote, a Colonel) with: "... whenever I shall be convinced that this war has for its object anything else that what I have mentioned or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the purposes of the abolitionists, I pledge you on my honor as a man and a soldier that I will not only resign my commission, but will carry my sword to the other side, and cast my lot with that people." (Basically, Grant -- who became a Union General -- flat-out told Lincoln that if he was being used to end slavery, he would not only quit, but join the Confederacy and fight for them. Remember, Grant's wife owned slaves until the 14th Amendment was passed.)

[Heartless Angel]

No, the confederacy had nothing to do with slavery or racism. It had everything to do with people tired of the federal government who wanted more power in the hands of the states.

I myself am moderately racist. I have an American flag bumper sticker. Is the American flag racist now? No. Why the **** would it be? It has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinions on minorities. The same is true here.

[Alpha]

You are both ignoring the whole point of a 'symbol'. A given symbol can mean anything -- and it can mean any number of things -- to different people, in different contexts, in different places, displayed in different ways, and so on.

Take the swastika (and I am not invoking Godwin's law), or should I say, in Sanskrit, svastika. Let's take a trip to Wikipedia:

"It occurs today in the modern day culture of India, sometimes as a geometrical motif and sometimes as a religious symbol; it remains widely used in Eastern religions and Dharmic Religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...duSwastika.svg

And then of course we have...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...i_Swastika.svg

...which requires no further comment.

And then we have it used by punks. Punks, at least in what I would consider 'pure' form, are not racist. They use the symbol as one of series of motifs and styles designed to cause outrage. No more and no less.

http://www.punk77.co.uk/graphics/sidswastika.JPG

You can keep going on this legalistic argument, or you can accept that in different places and at different times the Confederate flag has and will mean different things. And that will continue.

[Maridia]

I honestly just don't know what the flag stands for. Is it southern pride?

Whenever I've seen it yes I do associate it with racism. Probably since I've seen the flag mostly on the history channels about the KKK and things of that sort. And obviously in history books about the Civil War. Which again this will be a dispute since the north is taught in school the war was about ending slavery. And I've been told from southerners it was over states rights.

In the end I don't know, I'm not jumping to throw that flag around. I'll stick with the standard 50 stars and stripes.

[Furore]

I only know the basics when it comes to American history, but from what's filtered here via tourism, it seems more of a life style thing these days.

The US tourists we get sporting the Confederate flag often have a unique accent, like awesome bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd and like partying and boozing just like the rural Aussies here whereas the non Confederate flag sporting ones seem to talk differently, prefer different kinds of music and can be divided into two categories: intellectuals and easily exploitable folks in Hawaiian shirts and cowboy hats with cameras. I also notice the Confederate kind tend to favour utes/4WD rental cars while the other kind often go for the usual sedan/hatchbacks or luxury cars, though with noticeable variation regardless.

Might just be the tourists we get here though. Racist of me, I know, but sometimes I do notice clear differences like that.

[Sasquatch]

You are both ignoring the whole point of a 'symbol'. A given symbol can mean anything -- and it can mean any number of things -- to different people, in different contexts, in different places, displayed in different ways, and so on. ... You can keep going on this legalistic argument, or you can accept that in different places and at different times the Confederate flag has and will mean different things. And that will continue.

I disagree -- what it has stood for and represented has not changed since its creation. It has been manipulated to represent other ideals -- just as the swastika has, just as the American flag has, just as the Christian cross and Muslim crescent (debatable) have, etc. -- but that doesn't mean that they actually represent those things.

If somebody came to a protest holding a giant picture of you, trying to use you as the face of whatever their cause is, would that mean that you represent that cause? Of course not. You represent your own causes. If you are used as a symbol to support something other than you have already been known to support, your symbol is being misused, and it doesn't mean that you actually represent what you are being used for.

I honestly just don't know what the flag stands for. Is it southern pride?

Not so much Southern pride, but pride in the ideals of the Confederate States of America -- the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the limiting of federal power, reserving rights to each state, etc. etc.

Whenever I've seen it yes I do associate it with racism. Probably since I've seen the flag mostly on the history channels about the KKK and things of that sort.

... So you admit that you associate it with racism because you're a little naive about it, and that's all you've seen of it?

And obviously in history books about the Civil War. Which again this will be a dispute since the north is taught in school the war was about ending slavery. And I've been told from southerners it was over states rights.

Oddly enough, most Southern schools teach more that it was about slavery, because there are many more blacks in the South, and they are more offended by racism and perceived racism -- and if they tried to teach the facts, too many people would be offended (or, I believe the term I used before, "butthurt"). Most of the North has a little more leeway in what they can teach, because they have less of a minority population.

In the end I don't know, I'm not jumping to throw that flag around. I'll stick with the standard 50 stars and stripes.

A quick Google Image search will show you hundreds of instances where the KKK has marched with and/or displayed the United States flag. Does that make it racist?

(It should also show you pictures of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, at KKK rallies. They were mutual supporters, as Planned Parenthood was originally founded to help control the black population. And you'll probably also find people dressed as Klansmen pretending to support Republicans -- because without Nazis and the KKK, who would liberals have to compare to conservatives?)

Might just be the tourists we get here though. Racist of me, I know, but sometimes I do notice clear differences like that.

That's right. We're more awesome than yankees. Even if we're stuck living in the North. (And noticing or establishing stereotypes isn't really racist, especially when they don't differentiate between races.)

By the way, a message to Brits and Aussies and ... whatever people from New Zealand are called [EDIT: Kiwis! Duh. Thanks, Alpha!] ... and whoever else. I know some of y'all call all Americans "yanks" or "yankees". While this might be fine for the Americans in the Northern part of the country, those of us in/from the South don't take kindly to it. See, in the States, "yankee" is used by Southerners to refer to Northerners -- and it's not a term of endearment, to say the least.

[Jin]

I'm sorry, but I don't think the Stars and Bars can be compared to the Nazi Swastika. The Swastika's current symbolism is one tied to a specific party and to a specific ideology. The German flag (or the flags of individual regions within Germany) is fully capable of representing the German people both culturally and racially. The Confederate flag on the other hand is a cultural symbol tied to a particular kind of united Southern nationalism that cannot be expressed in either the American flag or individual state flags. Slavery is part of its meaning only so much as the Turkish flag symbolizes Armenian genocide or the Japanese flag symbolizes the rape of Nanjing or the American, Canadian and British flags symbolize the near complete destruction of the North American native population. The Swastika, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. Rather than representing a cultural group that happened to endorse a specific ideology, it represented a specific ideology that happened to blanket a cultural group. The Nazi Swastika then necessarily represents an ideology whereas the Confederate flag need not necessarily represent one. The latter is first and foremost a symbol of Southern culture; whether or not that culture continues to embrace the idea of slavery or racism is irrelevant.


Side note: Yes, I'm aware what Alpha wrote about the Swastika's other/original uses, but I'm referring specifically to the Nazi flag as it's something at least somewhat comparable to that of the Confederacy. Even taken out of the Nazi context, the Swastika represents an idea or a concept (religious or otherwise), rather than a cultural group (for the sake of argument, let's assume that cultural groups are more than just concepts as well, as that's an entirely different thread) and is therefore not comparable to the Stars and Bars.


Edit - side note 2: Just heard an interesting little story told by Shelby Foote, a Civil War historian, that involved a short exchange between a Union and Confederate soldier after one of the battles in the western theater, in Tennessee I think (the Confederate soldier was I POW I believe). The Confederate soldier was just a poor private, so naturally he didn't own any slaves and he had little interest in the new constitution that the Confederacy had produced as well. Given this, the Union soldier asked him what he was fighting for. The Confederate soldier simply replied with something along the lines of, "Because you're down here". I think that speaks volumes of what the war was really about.

[Block]

IMO, the confederacy fought a war over more than just slavery. Some people of this day and age use the Confederate symbol as a representation of the ideal that the Federal Government should not dictate laws to the states that do not affect other states (aka trade laws and general safety of the populous). Now granted I feel that a majority of people who still wave this flag do so for different reasons than expressing a distaste for the large Federal Government in which we are currently governed and do so more towards the "we should make Black people do work for us again" mindset. So I feel that the flag, much like most flags has two sides to what it stands for, one noble and just while the other, what mankind does to most things that are noble and just, a corrupted sense of self righteousness.

[Sasquatch]

Now granted I feel that a majority of people who still wave this flag do so for different reasons than expressing a distaste for the large Federal Government in which we are currently governed and do so more towards the "we should make Black people do work for us again" mindset.

Do these people think the Rebel Flag means slavery and little else?

Are these people under "[the mindset that] we should make Black people do work for us again?"

(By the way, in case I screw up this post, these are all pictures of black people with the Confederate battle flag. Obviously, if it was about slavery, they wouldn't be proud of it. More blacks fought under the Confederacy than fought under the Union -- that's about 200,000 under the Confederacy compared to about 180,000 under the Union -- and the ones that fought for the Confederacy weren't conscripted. That means that they weren't drafted -- they fought by choice.)

[The Alien Elite]

Being from Alabama, the answer I seem to keep coming is that they simply don't care.

I'm willing to say that 85% of the southerners who would display the confederate flag with "pride", do so not because of some deep, profound idea or dedication to their forefathers. I don't think they consider it at all. They "just do it". It's more a symbol of their culture and birthplace than anything meaningful.

Of course, my opinion will be biased as I hold deep hatred for the south/rednecks. Many areas of the south are America's own little third world countries, being twenty years behind the north in technology, language, and general intellect... *shudder*

[Jin]

Many areas of the south are America's own little third world countries, being twenty years behind the north in technology, language, and general intellect... *shudder*

This in itself is both a cause of the Civil War and a reason for the cultural split between North and South that still exists today (though perhaps in a muted form). The condescension of many Northern, so called 'modern' people towards the 'backward' Southerners is appalling (and certainly was during the years leading up to the Civil War). It's right that you compared it to the third world as this is a similar kind of cultural condescension that existed and still exists between the West and the rest of the world in general, albeit without the factor of race. There are similar regional problems in countries like Italy, where their Southern, mostly rural population is looked down upon as a "third world within our own backyard" (I forget who I'm paraphrasing there). That kind of condescension almost always breeds cultural divides, even if they did not exist beforehand. The Confederacy and its flag is an expression of that divide.

And on a side note, what exactly do you mean when you say they are behind in language? How does one do that exactly? Is there some sort of established ordering of English dialects that makes one more advanced than another? Linguists would be appalled by such a notion. Language is language, there's no right or wrong way to do it, just different ways.

[The Alien Elite]

Hmmm well, honestly it's quite difficult to pinpoint exactly what I mean, it's kind of a thing you'd have to experience for yourself.

Speaking a different language/dialect isn't bad, but the way they speak stems from pure laziness, i.g., "Jeet yet?" translates to "Have you eaten yet?". I suppose there's not even anything wrong with that, but imo, the way a person speaks is very indicative of their education and intellect. That's all...

And glad to see you're still around man.

[Alpha]

...a distaste for the large Federal Government in which we are currently governed...

That's funny. Most people would say that America's central government is incredibly small in international standards. Especially compared to Europe. Y'all yellin' 'bout 'Socialism': must be obvious the Cold War was lost in Europe, right?

[Sasquatch]

I'm willing to say that 85% of the southerners who would display the confederate flag with "pride", do so not because of some deep, profound idea or dedication to their forefathers. I don't think they consider it at all. They "just do it". It's more a symbol of their culture and birthplace than anything meaningful.

As is the display of most flags. You figure that only 15% of the people who display Confederate flags do it because it actually means something? How many people display American flags with any meaning? How many people with American flags on their cars, or windows, or even flying outside their house would ever even pick up a weapon and fight for that flag? Hell, how many of them even vote?

Of course, my opinion will be biased as I hold deep hatred for the south/rednecks. Many areas of the south are America's own little third world countries, being twenty years behind the north in technology, language, and general intellect... *shudder*

Continue the ignorant insults -- it's amusing. Especially when Illinois education is in the lower two-thirds by most national rankings, as opposed to Georgia, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, and even Kentucky.

As Jin said, thinking (rather, lack thereof) like that simply causes problems. Ignorant assumptions and stereotypes don't do anybody any good -- especially in a topic like this, which is centered around stereotypes.

Speaking a different language/dialect isn't bad, but the way they speak stems from pure laziness ...

You could say it stems from efficiency. As long as the are understood by the people around them, does it matter how they speak?

... i.g., "Jeet yet?" translates to "Have you eaten yet?".

First of all, when you're attempting to contribute to an intellectual topic, try not to use any quotes from Jeff Foxworthy. Especially not without crediting him. Second of all, I have never -- not once -- heard anybody use the word "jeet" in such a manner that "did you eat" was not clearly recognizable without translation. Unless, of course, it was in a mocking or comedic tone.

And third, why does it matter? Sure, people in the South talk a little differently than those in the North. So do people in New England and people on the West coast. So do people in Mexico or Canada. They speak different dialects -- sometimes entirely different languages (French in some parts of Canada, Spanish in most of Mexico and some California, etc.) -- with different accents. This does not mean that Mexicans and Canadians cannot be on the same intellectual level, or that people who say "y'all" must not be as smart as people who say "yous guys".

I suppose there's not even anything wrong with that, but imo, the way a person speaks is very indicative of their education and intellect. That's all...

Meaning that you're too shallow to look beyond your stereotypes that people who don't speak with a dialect and accent similar to yours are somehow lacking in intellect. We're not talking about Ebonics, here.

That's funny. Most people would say that America's central government is incredibly small in international standards. Especially compared to Europe.

America is the world's only superpower; it didn't get that way by punishing success and stifling business. In fact, it was just the opposite -- America has attracted millions of people from around the world (including many from Europe) who come to this country to succeed (rather, to be allowed to succeed) and be rewarded for it. Now that we're moving in that direction, what'll happen? Where will our Brain Drain go?

Besides, the idea of a huge, controlling central government is in direct opposition to our Constitution. Especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments included in the Bill of Rights. This brings us back to the original topic -- why people think that the thirteen Confederate States of America formed because of slavery and racism.

Y'all yellin' 'bout 'Socialism': must be obvious the Cold War was lost in Europe, right?

Actually, you should already know that the worldwide economy went up quite a bit immediately after Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. Western Europe would not have had nearly as much success to overtax if it hadn't been for Eastern Europe's talented emigrants.

[The Alien Elite]

Wow kid, try relaxing a little.

I won't tear apart your post though, as you do with everyone else, for it is extremely annoying when every sentence in a post is quoted.

You quoted me on everything -except- the most important part -- I'm from Alabama. I insult no one, I speak from experience. Can you say the same?

Stereotypes exist for a reason: because there is, more likely than not, always some truth to them. Of course reinforcing them is a bad thing, but I simply state my observations. If they fit, or even create the stereotype then so be it.

As far as your cute little Jeff Foxworthy comment goes, I have never cared for the man in any respect, have never watched or listened to one of his shows. I actually cannot stomach the thought of watching the "blue collar comedy tour" because I feel it not only reinforces stereotypes (as do many comedians), but glorifies stupidity, laziness, etcetera. "Jeet yet" was simply the first legitimate example that popped into my head.

Assume much?

Overall, your post accomplished nothing. You wanna talk about contribution? Try making a post that doesn't show your obvious sensitivity to the subject matter. Why do you care so much?

Of course, I could be wrong. It could just be that you enjoy thinking that you're on some intellectual high horse, when in fact you get off on being confrontational and taking other people's words and opinions out of proportion. The end result is you making yourself look like an ass while creating a hostile and negative vibe.

EDIT: I couldn't help but notice you tried to insult me by spouting facts about Illinois's education system that you probably just researched for the sake of this thread. Nice.

[T.G. Oskar]

Hmm...how about considering what the flag represents to each person individually? I think that's a better starting point than trying to force a meaning to a flag which has two different, and quite probably equal, symbolism.

That would be like this: Southerners that wave the Confederate flag would give the item a meaning relevant to their pride on the region of the United States they live in. Some of them may not be aware of the other meanings the flag may have. Others, probably do but won't care; they have "cleansed" the flag of the negative connotations and applied mostly positive connotations, such as regional pride. And others actually know about the negative connotations of the flag and enforce them because they like to provoke.

Which of the three meanings (similar in a few ways, of course) is right? Since the Confederate flag is not an official flag, it means anything you might want to associate a meaning to. When I mean an "official" flag, it means it doesn't represent a country with a defined government; in this case, it does not represent an official country. It could have represented a country (in this case, the Confederate States of America), but the country it represented does not exist anymore.

Of course, while you may wave your flag (or display your symbol) without any trouble to yourself since you give it your own meaning, other people won't associate it with the same meaning. Whether you really want to use the negative connotations of the flag or not, people will get offended. The Confederate flag will be racist to those whom place that meaning upon the flag, and in many occasions no proof that tries to deny that meaning will remove that symbology (as you can notice with the swastika, although IIRC the swastika commonly has its "spin", or the external lines perpendicular to the crossed lines, to the left; the Nazi swastika has their spin to the right.)

BTW, who invoked Godwin's law so early in the discussion? >.<

Now, as to whether the Confederate States (or rather, the southern states of the United States) are racist themselves... That's a different matter. It depends mostly on how you define racism, and whether you associate it to slavery as the principal cause. Though, it's also clear to define that racism (or rather, prejudice) evolves (for the lack of a better word; it would be defined best as changing and adapting with time, which fits with evolving) and differs within each individual.

[Pete]

I actually think The Alien Elite has a lot of validity to his argument. People in the South raise the confederate flag because it's just the thing to do. Their forefathers did it, and so will they. A lot of cultures do things like that, just look at any group of second, third, fourth and so-on generation Americans who get tattoos of their ancestors flags. It'd be akin to me, whose great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents came over from Europe, and me getting an Irish flag. Do I have any real history with Ireland? I've never set foot there, never met any of my ancestors who were actually there, but I am Catholic and I can drink. When people ask me what nationality I am, I say I'm Irish, but that's about it.

And not to take the wind out of this argument or to turn it into something silly, but I honestly do believe that the band Lynyrd Skynyrd does play a large role in the popularity of the confederate flag. They've used it in the past, and really stand as icons for the whole Southern "good ol' boy" stereotype that seems so prominent. Granted, Skynyrd was actually anti-slavery and very much against the idea of segregation

(as referenced in the song "Sweet Home Alabama" in which the lines:

In Birmingham they love the governor (boo boo boo)
Now we all did what we could do

They're booing governor George Wallace, who was infamous for his staunch opposition to blacks in "white" schools, violating the Constitutional ruling of "separate but equal").

But that aside, I think that Skynyrd played a large role in the essence of Southern culture, and raising the Confederate flag. I don't think it really has so much to do with racism, as it does just the concept and ideals of the idyllic Southern life. Like a slower lifestyle, without the hustle and bustle of the big cities up north.

Unfortunately, some people will take those symbols and twist them into their own meanings. The KKK has used the confederate flag in a misguided way, claiming that it's meant to show white supremacy and how all other races are inferior. But, you can really do that with any symbol, and take anything out of it's original context and warp it based on it's most ugly of incidents. People can see the US flag as a symbol of freedom and dreams, while others burn it, as it represents oppression and mindless violence. People can see the Christian cross as a symbol of hope and salvation, and others can see it as a bunch of rapey priests.

[Sasquatch]

I won't tear apart your post though, as you do with everyone else, for it is extremely annoying when every sentence in a post is quoted.

It's also more effective and efficient. I don't have to look back on the post I'm replying to to see exactly what I want to address, and nobody reading it has to wonder what I'm talking about when they see that each response of mine is directly underneath what I'm responding to.

You quoted me on everything -except- the most important part -- I'm from Alabama. I insult no one, I speak from experience. Can you say the same?

First, just because you claim to have lived among a group of people, you do not have the right to insult them, then claim that you're not insulting them because you've been around some of them. And second, yes, I can say the same -- I lived in ten places in four states before I even turned 16.

"Jeet yet" was simply the first legitimate example that popped into my head.

Assume much?

And as I've pointed out, "jeet yet" is nearly nonexistent outside of Jeff Foxworthy jokes and ignorant comments on anonymous internet message boards. It had to come from somewhere, and it wasn't reality.

Why do you care so much?

Something about ignorant people just irks me.

EDIT: I couldn't help but notice you tried to insult me by spouting facts about Illinois's education system that you probably just researched for the sake of this thread. Nice.

I've researched the education of many states before, for multiple reasons -- one such reason is that, upon moving back to the North, I knew that I would be ridiculed by ignorant high-schoolers for receiving a supposedly substandard education in the South. Apparently, things haven't changed much.

Now, would you like to contribute, or simply insult your superiors and hide behind ignorant stereotypes?

That would be like this: Southerners that wave the Confederate flag would give the item a meaning relevant to their pride on the region of the United States they live in. Some of them may not be aware of the other meanings the flag may have. Others, probably do but won't care; they have "cleansed" the flag of the negative connotations and applied mostly positive connotations, such as regional pride. And others actually know about the negative connotations of the flag and enforce them because they like to provoke.

I'm saying that the flag has no negative connotations other than what some people place on it -- always to support their ignorant stereotypes, sometimes against blacks, Jews, etc.; and sometimes against Southerners, as part of the Confederate States of America or more recently.

The Confederate flag will be racist to those whom place that meaning upon the flag, and in many occasions no proof that tries to deny that meaning will remove that symbology ...

First: Symbology? Now that Duffy has relinquished his "Kind Bonehead" crown, I see we have a new heir to the throne!

... Sorry.

Anyway. Second. I see your point -- it will always mean different things to different people -- but that doesn't reflect at all what it actually stands for. Take, for instance, slavery. Slavery existed under the C.S.A. for four years. It existed under the U.S.A. for ninety-two years. Why doesn't the United States flag stand for slavery? Why doesn't two hundred years of black oppression reflect any "meaning" on the American flag? I mean, sure, that might be all it means to some people, but those are few and far between. Why do so many people old ignorant views of the Confederate flag, but not of the American flag?

People in the South raise the confederate flag because it's just the thing to do. Their forefathers did it, and so will they. A lot of cultures do things like that, just look at any group of second, third, fourth and so-on generation Americans who get tattoos of their ancestors flags.

That doesn't mean that it does or does not stand for racism to any degree. Nobody's arguing that it is no longer used to represent what it did -- or, sometimes, not used to represent anything at all. I simply addressed that point by stating that it's the same situation with many symbols, including flags.

But that aside, I think that Skynyrd played a large role in the essence of Southern culture, and raising the Confederate flag. I don't think it really has so much to do with racism, as it does just the concept and ideals of the idyllic Southern life. Like a slower lifestyle, without the hustle and bustle of the big cities up north.

I surely don't disagree with you, there. The question I'd raise is: Did they make it more popular, or simply more acceptable? I mean, did people see Skynyrd and think that it was all of the sudden "cool" to have a Confederate flag? Or did they see the lack of outrage when Skynyrd couldn't be stereotyped as racist bigots, and realize that the Confederate flag was finally a little more socially acceptable?

The KKK has used the confederate flag in a misguided way, claiming that it's meant to show white supremacy and how all other races are inferior. But, you can really do that with any symbol, and take anything out of it's original context and warp it based on it's most ugly of incidents.

Exactly -- and whatever you warp it to support with it has no bearing on what it actually represents, correct? Again, the American flag is a great example -- especially since the American flag is used much more often by the KKK than any Confederate flag is.