Apparently, many NASCAR fans have a penchant for Confederate Flags, and some of them are upset about this editorial discouraging people from flying the Confederate Flag at a race at the California Speedway. They decided to come into the newspaper’s website and overwhelm the comments section with all the typical arguments. The same kind of comments I delete from here nearly every day.
Check out a few of the lovely comments. Let’s begin with this racism apologist RT:
We are constantly reading from sports writers like yourself that too many times politics are brought into sports yet here you are starting a debate that doesn’t need to be debated. The fighting of the Civil War was not about slavery but of state’s and man’s freedom to govern themselves. Once that war ended the healing between brothers started and continues. Shame on you for fueling this debate and stick to what you are supposedly paid to do and write about sports. Or better yet, transfer to the commentary section.
What strikes me about RT’s comment is how he decided that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about “man’s freedom to govern themselves.” Geez, I guess he has forgotten that slaves did not have the freedom to govern themselves because they were enslaved. (Grammarphiles I know this is a tautology :)) ) I’m also curious who the healing was with; does he mean between whites in the north and the south? Does he mean whites and blacks? I’m not sure, but this is the classic, “why are you even daring to talk about racism strategy?” Where some racism apologist minimizes racism, pretends to be a neutral/unbiased observer, and subsequently chastises the person acknowledging racism by telling them politely to shut up. Classic colorblind racist strategy.
Next we have GM. Who decides to play the “southern heritage card,” follows it up with nice rant against California, and then argues that he is a college professor who teaches constitutional law.
No, I agree as a proud Southerner who grew up in the shadow of the Darlington raceway and knew many of the early NASCAR drivers that the Confederate flag should not be flown at NASCAR events–in California that is. We would not want the proud symbol of our heritage and coursge in withstanding 142 years of illegal US occupation of our homeland to be smeared by being flown in the most socialist and un-American state in the union. To ignorance we can only say that no slave ship ever flew a Confederate flag. Our ancestors fought for the freedoms that had been written into the Constitution. When Lincoln proposed a Constitutional amendment that would protect slavery if the South would support his tariffs that would have, and did, bankrupt the South, the reponse was that slavery was dead and they would not support him. So please don’t fly our flag. As an educated, non-racist, Southern college professor who teaches American Constitutional history and government, I do not want it desecrated by ignorance Yankees who have no idea what it means.
I love how all of these southern heritage folks very conveniently forget that racism is part of that heritage. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think racism is unique to the south, but this country was built on the blacks of slave labor (I caught this typo and decided not to change it because it is just too ironic-the word is supposed to be backs.). The Confederacy was organized, in part, to uphold the state’s rights’ to retain slavery. If this guy has a PhD, I would hope that he had learned this in his history classes.
Next we have LDT, who can’t find anything “racist and regressive” about the south. In fact, I think LDT is still fighting the Civil War.
Lincoln fought against the constitution of the United States and everything that the U S stood for. He began the striping of power from the people that is so obvious today. He also did away with the only power that the people and that States had to keep the federal government within the constitution and that was the right of secession!
I wonder what LDT thinks about the Iraq War. Ok, sorry…I just thought the Civil War was over.
Next up is the classic “you are the real bigots strategy.” It is first used by a poster with the initials HBO, but then Charles comes in to save the day for the “you are the real bigots” racists.
Why is OK for blacks and other minorities to display pride in their heritage but when whites (especially southern whites)display pride or even indicate that they are proud of their heritage, they are immediately labeled racist and insensitive to others? This double standard has got to stop. If you are offended you have every right to leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. If someone were to found a White Coaches Association or a National Association for the Advancement of White People you can bet Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have a field day with the ensuing media circus. NASCAR’s roots aren’t in the north or the west or the east, it was started in the south and people should be proud of their heritage. There was a time when you weren’t anybody in NASCAR unless you had some “shine” in your background.
If you only knew, how many times I hear this crap. The NAACP was founded for the same reasons as the Confederacy? Well let’s investigate this. You can find more about the origins of the NAACP here, but I would just like to highlight this quote:
The NAACP was formed in response to the 1908 race riot in Springfield, capital of Illinois and birthplace of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, only 7 of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln’s birth. Echoing the focus of Du Bois’s militant all-black Niagara Movement, the NAACP’s stated goal was to secure for all people the rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which promised an end to slavery, the equal protection of the law, and universal adult male suffrage, respectively.
Gasp!!!! The NAACP was founded by white people, gasp again!!! I guess they were race traitors, sell-outs, or anti-white bigots because giving black people their rights under the law obviously means taking rights away from white people. Especially, their right to own slaves and fly the confederate flag. (Yes, I know I’m being unusually sarcastic and snarky, but how else do you respond to these people.)
Then, we have the “I know a black man who supports the Confederate Flag” argument. Because if we can find one Black person who supports this, then it must be Ok. This guy doesn’t realize it works better when the one black guy you cite is also your friend, but I digress. Let’s get to the quote from LF:
We’ve been through this many times before: hate groups have no right to define the meaning of the Confederate flag. The flag means different things to different people. I have even heard that a black man said that he wanted to kiss this flag because it reminded him that he is probably much better off in the USA than he would have been in Africa. The Civil War is by far the greatest legend of American folklore. Without Confederate flags, America would not look like America anymore. These attacks on Confederate flags are cultural genocide. To me, the flag has little or no present-day political or social significance. I see the flag as a fun thing and also as a symbol of the South, peace, tolerance, and national unity. When we fight over this flag, we set a very poor example for places where civil wars are still going on, like Northern Ireland. Also, censorship and attempted censorship of Confederate flags impair objectivity in the interpretation of history concerning the Confederacy.
I’m not even going to bother with the rest of the argument, but I have to admit that it is rather hilarious to bring up genocide. Dude why don’t you go talk to some American Indians about genocide. Now that’s a real genocide. Plus, doesn’t genocide involve mass killings. When was the last time white southerners were killed in mass, and don’t use the Civil War because nobody was fighting to kill off white southerners. The fight was over maintaining the Union. And last but not least, you have to ask yourself why the KKK and other hate groups so love the confederate flag. Which came first the KKK or the Confederate flag?
Ok, this guy GL just can’t judge time properly, and he uses the “I know a black man who supports the Confederate Flag” argument, so I had to throw him into the mix for a good laugh.
The Rebel Flag is not a hate symbol, racist, It has nothing to do with that this is all opinion not fact because it happened almost 2000 years ago and you people who want to ban it from sports and everything need to get over it! I can give you millions of people who will play sports with the rebel flag flying above and most people can and will do it because it is a flag not a hate and racist symbol. I know Cowboy Troy played with charlie Daniels with the flag draped behind them and Cowboy Troy is black too and the guy who played Sherrif Little on the dukes goes to dukesfest every year and signs General Lee’s with the flag on top and I know a black man in one of the carolina’s also had the flag on a pole and walked up and down a Highway and proved the flag does not and will never stand for racism and a lot of black people fought for that flag wether you wanna believe it or not. So leave our flag alone dang you people!
If these folks don’t think the flag is offensive and it is about southern pride, not white supremacy, can somebody please tell me why they always have to find somebody black to back them up? However, I am very happy to learn that the US has been around for well over 2000 years!
Now if all else fails and you can’t convince them that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate, you can always blame the Jews like JM:
Any sign of white racial consciousness and racial solidarity is deemed “hate,” “racism,” — evil-ism by egalitarianists, and pretend-egalitarianists, (with 99.9% of the politically correct in the latter). While Jews and nonwhites are encouraged to be racially conscious, to organize along racial lines, to appoint racially defined leaders, and to discriminate when it serves their ethnic interests — whites are punished for showing just a hint of racial aggression. Why do you think that where Jews live as a majority, Israel, they aggressively, sometimes violently promote the interests of the majority. Where Jews live as a minority, they aggressively, sometimes violently, promote the interests of minorities.
Racists, you gotta love ’em. It doesn’t matter what the subject most of their arguments are the same–ignore the topic at hand, chastise the person willing to acknowledge racism, deny/minimize the existence of racism in the past or present, say your opponents are the real bigots, look for a lone person of color to support you, and blame the Jews.
Before we get to the comments, I would like to admonish people to stay away from shameless NASCAR or southerner jokes. The problem isn’t auto racing or southerners; it is racism. While there may indeed be survey data that suggests racial prejudice is higher among white southerners, they are by no means alone in using these arguments. There are also many white southerners who are on the side of racial progress, and many northerners who are not; let’s not turn this thread into an excuse to make blanket generalizations about southern folks. These kind of arguments come up every time the subject is racism.
Footnote: Several of these people put their first and last names. I am not reprinting their names in their entirty because I don’t want them Googling themselves and trolling around this site. I am not trying to protect their identities, and if you want to see their names, you can click on the link to the article.
Brandon,
The author of the anti-neoconfederate blog identifies Lew Rockwell as a neoconfederate blog. That’s my point.
I personally believe that most neo-confederates are racists of varying degrees, and I trust the anti-neoconfederate blog author’s judgements on what is a neo-confederate site. I don’t read Lew Rockwell, so I cannot offer my personal opinion on whether or not I think the blog is a racist blog on par with the KKK. The site does come up when I do searches for racist sites/concepts, but I have not read it.
Robert said, “I blame the Jews for this. Amp, shame on you!”
Ha ha ha, you’re so funny I’m dying. Ha ha ha!! NOT!!
DJ writes:
The point is that both Lincoln and Douglas knew that Congress had no right under the Constitution to limit slavery within the several states. It also didn’t have a right to limit horses, liquor or corn. In the 1850’s politicians were well aware that Congress lacked this power and that the only way to enforce such a ban was by force of arms. That’s what Douglas’s comments in response to Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech are about — how, exactly, does Lincoln suggest that the end of the “House Divided” is going to occur? He says in his speech that ending it would require that Kentucky invade Illinois, or Illinois invade Kentucky.
I encourage anyone who thinks the war was about anything besides States Rights to read Douglas’s speeches. Here’s one of them, which is an educational read if you can refrain from throwing up when reading the blatant racism. There’s also this speech in which Lincoln pounds his fist on the Declaration of Independence since he knows that his plans are in violation of the Constitution (and he admits as much, FWIW).
“If the federal government tried to regulate something less crucial to their economics, I doubt secession would have been the result. ”
Thats kinda the point. They DID go for something rather crucial to their economics. Had the federal govenment tried to outlaw owning cotton or growing cotton, the result likely would have been the same. The southern states would have rebelled.
I feel like every time I post on this site a large contingent of commenters distort or misrepresent my views.
Welcome to the Internet. That’s unique to neither you nor this blog. Not that you’re not right, mind you.
I actually saw a Confederate battle flag once. No, not the reproductions we’ve all seen, but the real thing. For reasons that would take way too long to explain, I one day visited Washington and Lee University. I walked into a hallway and found myself in front of a display of a Confederate battle flag, along with 2 or 3 Confederate regimental flags. Sitting at a desk next to this was a quite elderly woman whose job it apparently was to talk to bumbling Northerners like me like me and explain what was going on. They were actual flags that General Lee had served under. She took pains to explain to me that the university’s name didn’t originally include General Lee’s until after he was dead; she was concerned that I would think that the man had an out of control ego. But all I could think about was that flag.
It is a fascinating thing that in this discussion when people want to claim that the North sucked, they point out that even during the war Lincoln was very slow and then very selective about freeing the slaves, but when they want to claim that the Southern states seceded because their rights were about to be stomped on by Lincoln (actually, people have been reversing the flow of time in this conversation and claiming that the secession followed the trampling of the right to slavery, but I digress), they make it sound as though Lincoln was planning to free the slaves by force. This sort of double think is not unique to FCH and pheeno, it is central to the conceptual games that Southerners play when thinking about the Civil War.
The reference in Douglas’s speech to Lincoln advocating making war upon the institution of slavery in the South (which slides into talking as though Lincoln were advocating physical invasion of the Southern states) certainly demonstrates that this fantasy has deep roots, but Douglas is engaging in propaganda, not accurately describing Lincoln’s intended policies. If the Southern States had not seceded, Lincoln would have been in no position to enforce abolition in any form (and indeed, as everyone here as agreed, Lincoln was not an abolitionist, the immediate abolition of slavery was not even on his agenda).
Now, Rachel has pointed out that this argument of the basis of the Civil War is a side stepping of the actual issues that she raised, an attempt to avoid discussing the current situation, and the current meaning of the Confederate Flag. But this obsession with whether or not the Civil War was about state’s rights instead of slavery is fundamental to how non-black Southerners who are not avowed racists go about excusing to themselves glorifying a war in which the South was fundamentally on the side of evil. Pretend that the war wasn’t really about slavery, and it becomes okay to use the sigils of a government formed solely to protect slavery as symbols of regional pride, and of a sense of having been wronged by the wealthier North. These are the lies that Southerners tell themselves, the lies that allow them to view “the South will rise again” as some generic slogan of regional hope and pride.
But they do tell themselves these lies, so there are many non-black Southerners who fly the Confederate flag out of regional pride and a hatred of the North, and not directly out of racist hatred of black people. The fact that racist Californians like George Allen also love the flag, and that the racist neo-confederate movement, and the KKK also love their flag does not mean that everyone who flies it flies it with racist intent.
You’d think that the fact that very few black people see the Confederate flag as a symbol of regional pride (to say the least) and the fondness of the Klan, etc for the flag, would give some people pause (and I’m sure it does give plenty of people pause), but that expectation (that the love of racists for the flag would make others uncomfortable with it) requires believing that merely because someone isn’t a KKK supporter means that they aren’t a racist, or that it matters to non-black Southerners that a symbol of regional pride have any inclusiveness for black Southerners. Clearly, for plenty of Southerners, it does not.
Close family friends of mine, the Johnsons, with whom my family went to the beach in North Carolina every year for the first 30+ years of my life, always bought inflatable rafts that bore the confederate flag. Joyce Johnson was the daughter of fervently racist Virginians, but she never seemed any more racist than any other white person I knew (my sister is black, so I get to see people’s racism up close). The confederate flag inflatable rafts always bugged the fuck out of me, but I never objected. In probably the last year that we went to the beach with the Johnsons, my sister brought her friend Wendy to the beach with us, and Wendy (who is black) objected strongly to the confederate flag inflatable rafts, so they were put away. Southerner though I am, that is about my only really direct experience with the Confederate flag.
And Robert, way back up there you repeated the usual predigested horse shit about racism in the North verses racism in the South, where you had to go to the North before you found towns that were completely physically segregated, and about how at least racist Southerners are bluntly racist rather than pretending to not be racist. Obviously, you never came through my home town, the twin towns of Chapel Hill (traditionally white) and Carrboro (traditionally black), a structure far from unusual in the South. Likewise, on the relative styles of racism in the North and the South, I can assure you that the South teems with white people who pretend they aren’t racist, but still tail black customers and still wouldn’t let their son date my sister (“It’s not that we object, but we don’t want to upset our relatives. Maybe you can go to the prom together if you agree not to have pictures taken.” – true story). Likewise, I don’t think the young white men in New York City in the 80’s who chased a black man out of a pizza parlor and into the way of on coming cars were particularly subtle about their racism.
Charles, sorry to ask, but are you the same as Charles S? Which one of you is Amp’s RL friend? I ask because I always thought Charles S was Amp’s RL friend, but I know that the human person “Charles” is from Chapel Hill, and so now I’m confused.
Whichever one you are, I’m sorry that you think my personal life experiences concerning racism and geography are predigested horse shit; I seem to remember having to digest them myself. No, I’ve never been through Chapel Hill, although I have lived in Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida.
I am not shocked to find that my own personal experiences do not reflect the totality of the universe.
Charles and Charles S are the same poster. I assume the difference is because he posts from two different computers; on one of them, the first time he posted, he filled in his name as “Charles,” on the other one “Charles S,” and now that tiny initial difference lives on forever.
Robert,
I don’t think that your personal life experiences are predigested horse shit. I think that your presentation of your self digested life experiences happens to line up with the standard line on Northern vs Southern racism. Perhaps that is because your life experiences match up with the standard line (although, since you aren’t the subject of anti-black racism, I’m not sure why your digestion of your life experiences would tell you much about the differences between Northern and Southern racism in terms of blunt racism vs. covert racism, nor why you would have a strong opinion on which form of racism you prefer).
Sorry that was more than a bit ranty. This thread has been pushing me towards ranty for a few days now, and I’ve been holding back, but it finally slipped through.
Charles S is Charles is me is Amp’s real life friend is your RL acquaintance (born and raised in Chapel Hill, NC). Sorry for the name confusion. It is as Amp says a difference between which computer I’m on. I should try to pay better attention to it as I imagine it is confusing.
“If the Southern States had not seceded, Lincoln would have been in no position to enforce abolition in any form (and indeed, as everyone here as agreed, Lincoln was not an abolitionist, the immediate abolition of slavery was not even on his agenda).”
He would have been in no position to legally enforce abolition. Since when has that stopped polititians? The Patriot Act violates so many rights it’s unbelievable, but you bet your ass it gets enforced.
”
they make it sound as though Lincoln was planning to free the slaves by force. ”
If I hit you with a bat, would you care how long (if at all) I’d planned to?
“(actually, people have been reversing the flow of time in this conversation and claiming that the secession followed the trampling of the right to slavery, but I digress”
Actually some of us have pointed out the right to seceed was not recognized, so technically, in the eyes of the federal government, no seccession happened at all.
“…
go about excusing to themselves glorifying a war in which the South was fundamentally on the side of evil. ”
For some of us non whites, the entire country was fundamentally on the side of evil, and trying to claim one region was “worse” is utter horseshit, and an insulting dismissal of genocide.
The south had slaves!
So did the North.
Yeah, but the South wanted them longer, so it’s worse!
The North was still busily killing off my people, so I think that makes it pretty even.
So just in my personal opinion, that soapbox for the north is standing on land they stole, and murdered to get. It’s not quite as stable as they want it to be, but like you said, people will tell themselves lies.
Charles,
I’m not a southerner. I live in the south, but I’m not from here and I don’t agree with a lot of what passes for “Southern Pride”.
I’m glad slavery was ended, and while I’m not shedding a lot of tears over the means by which it ended, I’m not ignorant of how it came to pass and the long term consequences of what happened.
You say that Lincoln never threatened war, and I say that authorial intent is just as dead today as it was when Lincoln said the things he said and Douglas interpreted them the way he did. I look at acts of violence which were committed in the territories against people who wished to bring slaves into the territories as well as against people who wished to exclude them. When a politician says what Lincoln said against the backdrop of the violence of the 1850’s, it is not a far stretch to believe that Lincoln was willing to go to war to bring about a change he knew he could not bring about through Constitutional means.
So…this makes slavery OK, because other people besides Southern slaveholders were also wrongdoers? So, why try to exterminate any evil behavior at all? Why not simply authorize genocide, torture, human slavery, murder for gain, robbery, rape, whatever, on the grounds that everyone is totally bad anyhow? After all, rape victims have probably also committed some kind of previous wrong in their lives, so who are they to complain? For that matter, Native Americans were busy killing each other off long before the Europeans got here, so anything goes?
(Please, for the love of God, stop saying “the South” when what you really mean is “white slaveholders in the South.”)
“So…this makes slavery OK, because other people besides Southern slaveholders were also wrongdoers? ”
Did I say it made slavery ok?
Find and directly quote where I said that. If you can’t, it means something.
Hint
It means thats not what Im saying.
But I suspect you already know that. Its funny how people react when you point out both sides were bloodthirsty land stealing human enslaving assholes. And one wasnt any better than the other.Somehow that mysteriously gets translated into ” so its Ok”.
“Please, for the love of God, stop saying “the South” when what you really mean is “white slaveholders in the South.”) ”
Thats the equivalent of an MRA troll posting ” you said all men are rapists”.
As we talk about states rights, both in the way-back context of slavery and with the modern-day gay and reproductive rights, it seems like an important distinction is being missed. All of those are issues within which one side advocates categorically denying rights to a class of people (black, gay, female), and so are different from most areas of law, and most ways in which states opt to differ from one another. Civil rights seems like the right term, but maybe there’s a specialfancy way of phrasing it that I don’t know [Susan? You’re the lawyer ;) ]. Ideally, imo, the federal government would limit states rights only insofar as the states rights can trample individual rights – in practice, not so much, of course, but protecting those limits shouldn’t necessarily be painted with the same brush as all federal involvement. I’m not entirely sure where that fits in with all of this, but it’s been in the back of my head for most of this thread, especially within this argument:
Which is about what I think I would’ve said at #135, if I hadn’t been so worked up. I tried to make both that point and this point at the same time, and screwed it all up. Within this paradigm, slavery isn’t a valid right to defend, or a valid right, period, because by definition it denies people that equality that we’re all supposed to be born with. If the federal government had banned horses, on the other hand, it would indeed have been overstepping constitutional boundaries.
damn, I meant to say “Susan, you’re the famous lawyer.”
Susan (the famous Lawyer) writes:
Wow. Not even sure where that came from.
Critically reviewing the attitudes of the North at the time of the Civil War is no where near suggesting that anyone should have just looked the other way.
Here’s some tidbits —
Despite believing that slavery was a moral wrong, many abolitionists did not view African slaves as the equal of whites.
There was no intention at the outset of the war to bring about the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. When the 13th Amendment was original sent to the House, it was rejected, despite the House being comprised solely of representatives from the North.
Kentucky had 30,000 slaves at the time the 13th Amendment was ratified. My home state had a number of “Apprentices for Life”, which is how slaves were reclassified in some states once reclassified when slavery was “abolished” in them. The difference between “Slave” and “Apprentice for Life” is lost on me.
Lincoln was a segregationist and believed in the superiority of the white race. While he was (obviously) an ardent abolitionist, he didn’t seem to have a problem with blacks — free or slave — being denied the vote. That was a legitimate States Rights issue in his mind.
Questioning the purity of Northern intentions gives us an opportunity to investigate why the Civil War failed to achieve equality for freed African slaves. It’s not just a matter that the North had slaves, too. The North had virulent racists, bigots, and all manner of other people whose singular saving grace is that they wanted an end to slavery.
I disagree. That one wasn’t any better than the other.
I persist in the belief that it is better to have a society where involuntary servitude is against the law (whatever other flaws that society may have) than to have a society where the economy is based on involuntary servitude. That the abolition of slavery in the country, however achieved, and however imperfect our society remained, was a giant improvement. It simply isn’t six of one and a half dozen of another between a society without slavery and one with it.
Unhappily, the abolition of slavery was the outcome of a devastating war. Slavery could have been abolished without fighting that war, but that wasn’t how it came out.
The virtue of the North is not the question. No one here is defending the virtue of the North. The both the North and the South were actively pursuing genocidal war against Native Americans (one of the most important questions that forced the Civil War was the question of whether the spoils of that genocidal war would be turned into slave states or free states). Some of the Northern states still had a few slaves, and no one was moving towards abolition very quickly.
But that snail’s pace progress towards abolition was enough to push the slave owning (and ruling) class of the South into breaking off to form their own country, where slavery would be enshrined in the basic structure of government, and abolition would be incredibly difficult. The flag of the Confederacy is the flag of the people who sought to ensure that slavery would continue for a long, long time.
That Lincoln was a racist asshole, that both the South and the North had been waging genocidal war against Native Americans for centuries, and continued to do so for the next century as well (although the military phase of the genocide ended a bit earlier than the 1960s), and that both of them would have continued to do so even if the South had been allowed to secede without a war, none of that changes the fact that the Confederate flag is the flag of a nation founded with the primary goal of protecting the institution of slavery.
Indeed they will. And ignoring the origins of this country in genocide is a pretty standard lie that both Northerners and Southerners tell themselves.
Of course, black people have again vanished from your analysis, so that it is only Northerners who object to the confederate flag again here. Most black people’s ancestors didn’t really have much say in the genocidal wars against Native Americans.
Both the US and the Confederacy were founded with genocidal war against Native Americans as a major goal. Both were founded with an acceptance of slavery. But the Confederacy was founded out of a fear that US protection of slavery wasn’t enough, that it might weaken, and that slavery might be prevented from continuing. The purpose of founding the Confederacy was to ensure the continued survival of slavery. The flag of the Confederacy stands for the dream for the continued survival of slavery.
People overwrite that meaning with other meanings for their own purposes, but that meaning is fundamental to the history of the flag.
This country is soaked in the blood of Native American genocide and in the blood of slaves, and we fail perpetually to engage in dealing with the past. The flag of the US (although different versions) was flown by genocidal troops for a century and a half (and by the advocates of cultural genocide ever since). Does the bloody history of the US and its flag mean that no American can object to any other symbol of evil? Is it only Northerners who are required to shut up about symbols of evil?
“I disagree. That one wasn’t any better than the other.”
From my perspective, as well as a great deal in my local council, they were two peas in a pod.
“I persist in the belief that it is better to have a society where involuntary servitude is against the law (whatever other flaws that society may have) than to have a society where the economy is based on involuntary servitude. ”
The name “slave” got changed. Involuntary servitude still continued. Euphamisms for slavery dont really change much other than to make it legal.
And the side you think was better continued on in its genocide after the civil war. To me, that doesnt make them better.
Two sides of white people fighting over who treated minorities less like shit.
Sorry if Im not properly grateful or appreciative of the side so full of its own bullshit it thinks it treated us slightly better.
“The flag of the Confederacy is the flag of the people who sought to ensure that slavery would continue for a long, long time.”
It wouldnt have.
“The virtue of the North is not the question. ”
Really? Because it sounds like some people here think it was better.
“none of that changes the fact that the Confederate flag is the flag of a nation founded with the primary goal of protecting the institution of slavery.”
And none of that changes the fact that slavery was just a soundbite for the Union and they didnt give one shit about the slaves, other than to want them the hell out of the country.
If I wanted to abolish owning cars because I hate cars, I’ll claim its out of concern for the environment. And given the fact the Union was chock full of liars, murderers, and enslavers, Im not inclined to take their word on it. They thought slavery was immoral. My brown ass they did.
“Does the bloody history of the US and its flag mean that no American can object to any other symbol of evil? Is it only Northerners who are required to shut up about symbols of evil? ”
Does the history of the confederate flag mean no non white person can point out the hypocracy of white people trying to justify the belief one side was any better?
We treated you minorities slightly better damn it! Acknowledge that and focus on the REALLY bad guys!
When you have 2 guilty parties, since when does including them both mean you’re excluding one or giving it a pass? What do people want? A thank you?
“
“I have heard talk, and talk, but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Words to not pay for my dead people, they do not pay for my country, they do not protect my father’s grave. Good words will not give me back my children. Good words will not give my people good health and stop them from dying. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words, and all the broken promises.”
— Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekht (Chief Joseph), Nez Perce, in speech at Lincoln Hall, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., 1879
That sound like things got better?
“If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace. There need be no trouble. Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them all an even chance to live and grow.
You might as well expect the rivers to run backward, as that any man who was born a free man will be contended when penned up, and denied liberty to go where he pleases.
We only ask an even chance to live as other men live. We ask to be recognized as men. Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself.”
— Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekht (Chief Joseph), Nez Perce, speech at Lincoln Hall, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., 1879; he died in exile from his own lands
Yeah…slavery ended. Thank you oh great white northern saviors.
I’ve waited to see if *anyone* would bring this up but since no one has here it is
The reason I know in my soul the Union was not in any way shape or form different from the north can be summed up in one word
Reservations.
For people so hell bent on discussing how the Unions was responsible for abolishing slavery , explain to me just what you think reservations were. Holiday camp for the world weary Indian? No. They were Slave Camps. The Union had these slave camps all over their country, before during and after the civil war. They gave a fuck about ending slavery? Funny they didnt emanciate any slaves forbidden to leave a shitty patch of land. Or let them hunt for their own food. Or let them worship their own gods. Or work. Or do anything but die quietly like obedient little discarded slaves. In exhile from their own damn land. They “fought” against slavery while keeping slaves.
Pot
Kettle
Black
Pheeno, I think I understand where you’re coming from, but I must admit I would appreciate some clarification on a few points.
Are you equating the federal government with the North and the Union side of the Civil War when you talk about genocide and reservations? Because I believe at least some of the horrible things the U.S. did to Native Americans were initiated before the Civil War, and some of them after, and I’m not sure how many during, so I get confused when you (apparently) attribute federal actions solely to the Yankees. Since the white people grabbing real estate were immigrants from Europe, disaffected Southerners, and displaced Northerners, I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
There is plenty of guilt all around.
But my point about reservations is that it comes down to a side who has slaves telling another side they cant. If you own slave camps, it’s pretty fucked up to say ” you can enslave race X in this manner, but not race Y in that manner”. And then for some to argue the north/the union worked to end slavery, an enslaved race is being ignored. We werent emancipated. The civil war did nothing for us. And the ones responsible for emancipation of african americans were still enslaving Native Americans and killing us and forcing us to live where they wanted, how they wanted. So for me, they dont get props or recgonition for jack. They didnt end slavery, they just went back to their original slaves.
Wow. I commented way above and its fascinated me how this conversation keeps going and going. The overarching thing that keeps running in my head is something my grandmother used to say all the time “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” I was initially upset over pheeno’s comments about the confederate battle flag, but I can see where she’s coming from. In the grand scheme of hideous things europeans and their descendants have done as they marched across the earth, slavery is just one more. Why is african slavery worse than the genocide of native americans? Why is the confederacy somehow more evil?
I don’t think that anyone here disagrees that whites in america have a bad history of treatment of non-whites. Nor do we intentionally negate the native american experience, however it does get marginalized in our history and in the discussions of racism in american. It’s almost like native americans don’t even exist, not only in part because europeans systematically destroyed them, but also because we neglect them in our history.
All of this is to say…i will still look at the confederate battle flag and associate it with people who would defend the right to own another person simply because they are black. That does not negate your experience, pheeno, it validates my own. My father’s family are from texas and oklahoma, both of his grandmother’s were descendants from native americans marched west on the trail of tears. My grandfather was extremely racist and refused any association with his ancestry. My father very proudly and prominently displays a confederate battle flag to this day as a symbol both of his southern heritage and of his white heritage.
I am both disgusted and amused when he does this, mostly because i know what the flag symbolizes for him and i know who he is and where our family came from.
” Nor do we intentionally negate the native american experience, however it does get marginalized in our history and in the discussions of racism in american. It’s almost like native americans don’t even exist, not only in part because europeans systematically destroyed them, but also because we neglect them in our history.”
Thats why I bring it into the conversation. It gets overlooked in every single civil war/slavery discussion. People talk about how it was the northern government that forced the confederacy to give up slaves…but they didnt. They kept *us* as slaves the whole time.
“My father very proudly and prominently displays a confederate battle flag to this day as a symbol both of his southern heritage and of his white heritage.
I am both disgusted and amused when he does this, mostly because i know what the flag symbolizes for him and i know who he is and where our family came from. ”
I find it sad. Thats the result of the federal government and white society oppressing Native Americans. They learned self hatred. Thats why you see african american children pick white dolls when they’re told to pick the nice doll, and black dolls when theyre told to pick the bad.
OK, I get you now (I think). Thank you for the clarification. The recent GAO report just makes what you have said here sound even worse than it did before.
Sadly, I never really had Civil War history in school. It was fashionable at the time I took U.S. history to break the curriculum up into 20-year segments, of which a student got to choose 4. They did not have to line up in any way, shape, or form. Because of where my name fell alphabetically on the class list, by the time my turn came to select my 4 classes, I ended up with 3 sessions of Pre-Revolutionary War Colonial History, 1750-1770, and one session of Pre-Civil War History, 1840-1860. (You will notice from this that some decades got left out.) I was later able to swap one of my Colonial History classes for a TBD period, as one of the teachers had to go to reduced work hours for personal reasons, and this ended up being a 10-week session on the Bay of Pigs, because that was the topic of the substitute’s dissertation.
Native Americans tribes generally sided with the South during the American Civil War. The Confederate army had Cherokee regiments. Some tribes fought with the South because they thought the Confederate Congress would be easier to deal with than the U.S. Congress. And of course, virtually all tribes had slaves before and after the European discover of the Americas. A major purpose of inter-tribal warfare was to capture slaves. The tribes also had African-American slaves. All the states voted to abolish slavery at the end of the Civil War, but this left slavery legal in the Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). The federal government ended slavery by purchasing slaves from the individual tribes. The Cherokee were the last to give up their slaves. The Cherokee Nation made headlines last month by voted to deny tribal membership to the descendants of black Cherokee slaves.
The reservations did have slaves, but the slaves weren’t Native Americans; they were African Americans. When the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickashe and Creeks were forced to move to the Indian Territory (Oklahoma) they took thousands of their black slaves with them. Slavery was still legal in the Indian Territtory following the Civil War. The U.S. government ended slavery by purchasing the African American slaves from the tribes. The Cherokee were the last to give up their slaves. The Cherokee Nation made headlines last month by voting to deny tribal membership to the descendants of their black slaves.