RE: Heritage or Hate?

RE: Heritage or Hate? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 1:13:38 PM)
Really? Your information is just not accurate. I'm not quite sure why we are re-fighting the Civil War on this thread, but OK. I'm up for it! The Confederacy The Confederacy was made up of the following states: Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia two other states were "admitted" by the Confederacy, but never actually seceeded and were not controlled by the Confederacy: Kentucky Missouri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Seceding_states The Civil War started in April 1861. According to the Census, in 1860 the states that later because the Confederacy had the following number of slaves (rounded to the nearest thousand): Alabama 435,000 Arkansas 111,000 Florida 62,000 Georgia 462,000 Louisiana 332,000 Mississippi 437,000 North Carolina 331,000 South Carolina 402,000 Tennessee 276,000 Texas 183,000 Virginia 491,000 the other two states: Kentucky 225,000 Missouri 115,000 http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/newlong2.php Out of those states, which five are you saying had "virtually no slaves"? Among the Confederate states, only Florida had less than 100,000 slaves the year before the Civil War started! I wouldn't say that any of the Confederate states had "virtually no slaves," unless 62,000 slaves is virtually none! And, with 183,000 slaves, Texas was certainly not a state where "institutional slavery was virtually nonexistent." To quote a source: Slavery in the United States is most closely associated with the deep South but Texas was also a slave state. From the early days of colonization until after the Civil War, slavery was an integral part of the colony, the Republic, and the State of Texas. The legacy of slavery, although officially abolished in Texas in 1865, continues today. http://austin.about.com/cs/history/a/slavery.htm The Union The Union States and the number of slaves each had as of 1860, according to Census data: California 0 Connecticut 0 Illinois 0 Indiana 0 Iowa 0 Kansas 2 Maine 0 Massachusetts 0 Michigan 0 Minnnesota 0 Nevada 0 New Hampshire 0 New Jersey 18 New York 0 Ohio 0 Oregon 0 Pennsylvania 0 Rhode Island 0 Vermont 0 Wisconsin 0 border states: Maryland 87,189 Delaware 1,798 By itself, the Union states combined had fewer slaves than Arkansas alone, and Arkansas had fewer slaves than every Confederate state except Florida! The Civil War was essentially a war between those states whose economies were based on free wage labor, and those states whose economies were based on slave labor. There is no way that the Union states had more slaves than the Confederate states! I respect Doris Kearns Goodwin as a historian. I'm not aware that she has ever written that the primary cause of the Civil War was anything other than slavery. If you can point me to something, I'd be happy to read it.

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 1:19:34 PM)
You're right, the United States (i.e., Lincoln) could have outlawed slavery in the non-Confederate states that did not seceed from the Union, like Maryland, but it did not. The way I understand that, is that Lincoln did not want to risk driving Maryland, which had a substantial slave population, and other border states into the Confederacy. He probably should have, but he didn't. Really, really die-hard Confederates probably do refer to it that way!

ctsub2003 -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 1:40:38 PM)
It amazes me how many individuals come out of high school/college without a rudimentary understanding of US history. So let's clarify some things 1) the Civil war was fought primarily over states' rights, with slavery being a secondary concern. Abraham Lincoln personally despised slavery, but in the early years of the war his primary concern was the preservation of the Union. His personal belief was that slavery was an immoral, impractical, unsustainable institution that was rapidly approaching obsolence. Aside frrm ethical considerations, Lincoln predicted that the institution would die out quickly w/ the advent of the cotton gin, mechanization of field labor, etc. One individual already pointed out that 5 of the 13 Confederate states were not perpetuating its practice. 2)The Emancipation Proclamation was not a legal precedent, it was simply a very articulate speech given by Lincoln to encourage the border states (Maryland, Delaware etc) to abandon neutrality and back the Union forces more enthusiastically. Since most of the population had serious ethical concerns related to the continued presence of slavery in modern society, Lincoln hoped the Proclamation would invigorate the resolve of the Union. It was basically a statement of intent, as legislative equality would not come until the 13th (abolition of slavery)14th, and 15th Ammendments. It is a very interesting epoch in American history which evokes quite visceral reactions (as the posts clearly illlustrate, lol). Further reading on the subject matter should include The History of the Atlantic Slave Trade. It provides a very comprehensive analysis. However, of more immediate importance is the continued existence of the practice today, ironically in Black and Muslim areas. The institution is deplorable in any form, but it is more disheartening to know that 150 yrs after the Civil War, during the Post Industrial Revolution, that its practice continues. Perhaps we should examine that issue, rather promote irrational, heated debates w/ the un-informed.

caitlyn -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 1:42:53 PM)
Small clues: Institutional slavery, is just that, and bondsmen are not slaves. If you are not going to count bondsmen in the north, you certainly can't count them in the south. Especially in Texas, it's more accurate to consider these people serfs, rather than slaves, as there was no formal law binding them ... something that was attempted at formation, but never formalized. I think you will find this to be the case in many states in the southwest ... they had no laws forbidding slavery, but likewise had no laws binding one person to another, other than by financial arrangement, which of course isn't slavery at all. 1860 ... isn't 1864. Doris Kearns Goodwin, makes a point in her works (I've actually heard her speak a few times) that there were so many reasons for fighting the war, you can hardly make sense of them all ... which is a logical point of view. It is of interest that she is regularly criticized for not taking a "war about slavery" stand, when she clearly does list this as one of the most important factors, especially in the north. Question to you ... if the south was fighting to preserve slavery, alright then. One wonders how many poor southern foot solders, that died by the tens of thousands, were slave owners. I had an ancestor that fought and died in Cobb's Georgia Legion. While I don't own a confederate flag, I still honor him none the less. He came from Ireland and was probably more of a slave himself than a slave owner. Slavery was a national embarrassment, and it's shameful that it took so long to remove it in North America ... but hating on a fucking flag, or being offended by it ... hell, don't people have anything better to do with their lives? For the love of God, get over it already. My ancestors were probably slaves to the Romans, but I like Italian made designer jeans none the less. [;)]

Pulpsmack -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 2:21:01 PM)
What really is the point of this issue? Humanity? Racism? Tolerance? American ideals? America like ALL other nations has a past filled with tensions. We have been rather progressive in setting legislation and schemes to "right the wrongs of the past" (whether these methods are good, bad, insufficient, and/or inappropriate is a different matter). From a societal standpoint however, we have a targeted majority and an intolerant minority, with a "respect my feelings/status or suffer" mentality. This goes on because some portion of the "targeted majority" tolerates or even endorses this attitude. Frankly, I look at things with the principals of this country in mind. One should be free to express whatever he/she wishes to express, and there should be no government program or legislation in place to prevent that. This has consequences, but they are outweighed by the oppessive consequences of the reverse option. Some signs can be innocuous whereas others can be hateful catalysts. I have read at least two stories where a child was severely reprimanded for bringing a so-called swastika into school, only to find it was the indian sign, not the fascist one. This is a perfect example of ignorance, stupidity, and hurt feelings running amuck. I rather live in a society where a few extremist assholes (who will do so regardless of consequence) are free to display their views/attitudes/ignorance rather than have a scared culture of lemmings who fear a symbol they know nothing about. Fine, so do we consider intent then as to where the symbol is offensive or not? I grew into adolescence in the late 1980s and early 1990s.This was a time where blacks were causing a mini social revolution through their frustration with the social issues of the Regan administration and they were begining to assert themselves. Rap was not about bitches, hoes, and big houses. Back then, it was a declaration of war. To some it was a declaration of war against the racist system that stiffled their advancement. To others it was a declaration of war against a people who right or wrong had more advantages, AKA Whitey. The lines were blurred a great deal (varying with the artist and the listener). One of the great symbols of the time was another cross... rather a white X boldly emblazoned on a black T shirt or ball cap. This was in memory of Malcom X, the more radical black activist who believed in the use of force (if necessary) to promote/defend/advance his people. Some people wore that X as a symbol of pride, hailing a well-read activist who fought for the same goals in the civil rights movement as King Jr (albeit with different methods). Others were black-skinned hateful "rednecks" who wore that X like a badge of contempt for white people and white society. Is that enough to villify the symbol? The Confederate flag was recognized as a sovereign flag of many states and remained on the state flag of many of them during ALL of our lifetimes. It has history that binds many people, good and bad. I do not care if it offends somebody. We have communist fashion accessories that offend many people whose families were tortured or killed by officials of that regime. There is was and always will be something offensive in the past, because man kind is composed of winners (of wars and government) an losers. Grow up. People offend me. I would like to see them blotted from this earth based on the fact their very existence offends me. Tough. I am required to act like a civilized adult and ignore these people who offend me. It is part of co-existing in society. You don't have license to act like some savage and react out of hurt or fear of some symbol that stirs up panic like fire. Substantially everybody in our society has the intellect to overcome this primitive nonsense. Those then who continue to do so will do this out of ignorance, and I refuse to condone any principle that stiffles some part of society's freedom (good or bad) over another's ignorance. The word "Tolerance" does not mean "love" or "acceptance"... it means put up with to the point you can coexist... nothing more.

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 2:55:57 PM)
"Without a rudimentary understanding of US history?" Oh, PLEASE!!! Just when I was trying to be nice... Let me say this. When I state a fact--especially on a controversial or contested issue--I have tried to give the reader a link to information that supports the fact I stated. What have you (who think you have a better than "rudimentary understanding" of US history) done? Not a thing, except give your entirely unsupported opinion disguised as a statement of fact! Exactly which 5 of the Confederate states "were not perpetuating" the institution of slavery? Alabama with its 435,000 slaves, Arkansas with its 111,000 slaves, Florida with its 62,000 slaves, Georgia with its 462,000 slaves, Louisiana with its 332,000 slaves, Mississippi with its 437,000 slaves, North Carolina with its 331,000 slaves, South Carolina with its 402,000 slaves, Tennessee with its 276,000 slaves, Texas (where the institution of slavery was allegedly "practically nonexistent") with its 183,000 slaves, or maybe Virginia with its 491,000 slaves? Which 5??? You definitively demonstrated your great grasp of American history when stated that the Emancipation Proclamation was "simply a very articulate speech"! That's not what the Emancipation Proclamation was, at all. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by the President of the United States! The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued on September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in such territory of the Confederate States of America as did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863, and the second one, issued on January 1, 1863, enumerated the specific territories where it applied. It was not a law passed by Congress, but a presidential order empowered, as Lincoln wrote, by his position as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution. The proclamation had legal effect. By declaring the slaves free in areas in rebellion against the government of the United States, it allowed the Union army to seize those slaves as contraband as it conquered Confederate territory, which deprived the Confederacy of the use of its slave population. The proclamation did not free any slaves in the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern territory already under Union control. It first directly affected only those slaves that had already escaped to the Union side, but as the Union armies conquered the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (an estimated 4 million) were freed by July of 1865. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_proclamation Now that your great grasp of American history has been demonstrated, how about presenting some evidence to back up what you have to say? How Lincoln personally felt about slavery is not in dispute or particularly relevant. By the way, I own more books on American slavery and the slave trade than I would care to count, including The History of the Atlantic Slave Trade and The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America by W.E.B. DuBois. Heard of him???

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 3:02:57 PM)
The census counted slaves. The numbers are of slaves. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "bondsmen," as though that was some distinct legal status. Yes, indeed, thousands and thousands of Confederate soldiers who were not slave owners died defending slavery. That's one of the tragedies of the Civil War. All thoughout history, millions of people have died in war fighting for something that would not benefit them in the least, believing at the time that they were fighting for something else. [Kinda like fighting for oil in Iraq, but believing you're fighting to "bring democracy." But, I digress!] 1860 isn't 1864, but who was talking about 1864? The census numbers are from 1860, and I think that gives us a pretty good idea of how many slaves were in each state in 1861! "Get over it"??? I won't even dignify that with a response...

Alumbrado -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 3:21:40 PM)
quote: The Confederate flag was recognized as a sovereign flag of many states and remained on the state flag of many of them during ALL of our lifetimes. I do not care if it offends somebody. Perhaps you are simply too young to remember Jim Crow, but don't presume to speak for 'all of our' lives. Your 'war' between blacks and whites goes back well before rap music. "...during the 1950s and 1960s, in a defiant stand against integration. Denmark Groover, the Georgia House floor leader who in 1956 sponsored the legislation to add the Southern Cross into the state flag, freely admitted as much. He maintained that he and many of Georgia's legislators at the time were staunch segregationists who had urged that the Confederate symbol be added to the flag as a protest against federal integration orders" "In 1956, Georgia adopted a new state flag that, like Mississippi's, incorporated the Confederate battle flag in its design. The flag, introduced two years after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), represented the Georgia legislature's protest against forced integration" "In 1963, at the peak of Alabama's conflict with the federal government over segregation, Gov. George Wallace raised the Confederate battle flag over the Alabama statehouse to protest a visit by then-attorney general Robert F. Kennedy." "In 1962 the Confederate battle flag was placed on top of the South Carolina statehouse by vote of the all-white legislature. " http://www.infoplease.com/spot/confederate2.html Or you could just keep on not caring about facts, or who you offend.

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 3:26:50 PM)
I must confess, I'm not sure what all that means. I think that the origins and lineage of the Confederate flag have pretty much been established, by people who know much more than I do about it. From what they've said, it hasn't been the state flag of many states "for ALL of our lifetimes." You don't have to care whether or not it offends somebody. That wasn't the question. The question was is it offensive? The answer from many has been "yes." If it doesn't offend you, that doesn't change the fact that it is offensive to many. I don't know anything at all about "Communist fashion accessories," and I wouldn't be offended by them if I did. You can't compare the "X" on a "Malcolm X" hat to the cross. To my knowledge, nobody ever burned an "X" on somebody's lawn. The question presented was whether a confederate flag t-shirt is offensive. It is. Some have undertaken to determine if it's proper to ban such a t-shirt from school. You don't have an unlimited right of self-expression in school. Sorry. Neither do you at work. Try going to work with a t-shirt like that on. Well, maybe in the deep South you could, but not pretty much anywhere else. And, I think, by now, I'm pretty grown...

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 3:33:09 PM)
Great post!!!

Pulpsmack -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 3:46:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: The Confederate flag was recognized as a sovereign flag of many states and remained on the state flag of many of them during ALL of our lifetimes. I do not care if it offends somebody. Perhaps you are simply too young to remember Jim Crow, but don't presume to speak for 'all of our' lives. Your 'war' between blacks and whites goes back well before rap music. ...Or you could just keep on not caring about facts, or who you offend. Until your facts contradict mine, my presumption stands regardless of how you wish to frame it. The last confederate flag was taken off the Missippi State flag less than 15 years ago. As for your Jim Crow reference... what relevance does it have to my point? Old glory is and should be just as offensive for the same reasons and then some. How many slaves were incorporated in our history under the stars and stripes? How many civil rights abuses? How many Germans and Japanese interned and killed, etc, etc. So some token act of contrition makes one good and another evil? It's nonsense. My flag is offensive to many people in the world, and I have a lovely one-finger salute to all those who are offended by it. The fundamental difference is that I live in a nation that was founded on a republic that recognized freedom of expression, and that included offensive expression of all kinds (until the Supreme Court started whittling away at that). I would rather we offend the people of this nation collectively than coddle them all to the point that ideas, and expression is stiffled because someone might not approve. If one does not like my direction of thought, they may feel free to engage me in discourse to either challenge those views, or understand mine, but if someone is offended, I could care less. Blame my ill manners, blame this counter-revolution to the PC movement, blame what you will. I am sick of seeing people forced to break their own legs in an effort to avoid stepping on another's toe.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 3:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan I must confess, I'm not sure what all that means. I think that the origins and lineage of the Confederate flag have pretty much been established, by people who know much more than I do about it. From what they've said, it hasn't been the state flag of many states "for ALL of our lifetimes." You don't have to care whether or not it offends somebody. That wasn't the question. The question was is it offensive? The answer from many has been "yes." If it doesn't offend you, that doesn't change the fact that it is offensive to many. I don't know anything at all about "Communist fashion accessories," and I wouldn't be offended by them if I did. I agree. The answer from many has been "yes". Some things offend me, most don't. But those that do shouldn't be banned because they offend me, just as those that offend you shouldn't either. quote: You can't compare the "X" on a "Malcolm X" hat to the cross. To my knowledge, nobody ever burned an "X" on somebody's lawn. I wasn't comparing Malcolm's "X" to the cross, I was comparing it to the stars and bars (which was never burned on anybody's lawn to my knowledge either). Both are comparable symbols however (although the significance and history of one is dwarved by the other). Both can be employed or viewed as an innocuous expression of a subculture, both can be used as a symbol of pride, or misused as a banner of hate. quote: The question presented was whether a confederate flag t-shirt is offensive. It is. Some have undertaken to determine if it's proper to ban such a t-shirt from school. You don't have an unlimited right of self-expression in school. Sorry. Neither do you at work. Try going to work with a t-shirt like that on. Well, maybe in the deep South you could, but not pretty much anywhere else. And, I think, by now, I'm pretty grown... This is a good point and you are absolutely right... from the point of view of the law. There are two such arguments... "law" (what is in black and white) and "equity" (what should be put in black and white). You argue the law, and the Supreme Court has given you enough ammunition to make a solid point. I argue equity. Is one better than the other? It depends. I remember when the law was that people could be kept in chains or out of certain restrooms. Equity was the opposite.

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 4:38:16 PM)
I think the facts have already contradicted yours. If the Confederate flag didn't become a state flag (or part of a state flag) in those states until the time frame indicated, then it hasn't been such "ALL of our lives." I'm sure the American flag does offend many people all over the world. But that's not the question in this discussion, and it's not relevant to the question whether the Confederate flag is offensive. I see you are in Louisiana. Would those nooses that were hung from that tree in Jena, Louisiana have offended you? They sure would have offended me!!! Should the boys that hung those nooses from the tree , have been "free" to do so on school grounds--public property? Not a chance! Freedom of speech is not absolute. Not even here.

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 4:52:39 PM)
But the question isn't should Confederate t-shirts be banned! The question is are Confederate t-shirts offensive! I think they should be banned from schools, because they are offensive to many. Beyond that, anybody can wear one anywhere they want to. Except in my house!

Pulpsmack -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 5:10:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan I think the facts have already contradicted yours. If the Confederate flag didn't become a state flag (or part of a state flag) in those states until the time frame indicated, then it hasn't been such "ALL of our lives." The misinterpretation here is captured perfectly with your statement: ALL of our lives, meaning throughout everybody's lifetime. What I meant was there has been a confederate flag in the state(s) at some point in ALL of our lifetimes. Clearly this was not a big issue of my argument but it has been made a sticking point, so here is the clarification. quote: I'm sure the American flag does offend many people all over the world. But that's not the question in this discussion, and it's not relevant to the question whether the Confederate flag is offensive. Of course it is relevant. What does "offensive" mean? A few minorities don't like it? Popular culture looks down on it. Substantially everybody has a problem with it? There is a sliding scale of what "offensive" is, and demonstrating this with the stars and stripes is relevant, particularly with respect to "why" the stars and bars is offensive (as BOTH represented the same "offensive" acts before and after the civil war or civ rts movement.) You think it should be banned because it is "offensive to many". That is an arbitrary standard, which I am confident encompases more topics than you are prepared to open the can of worms over. Moreover, "offensive" is an subjective standard, one that has not been clearly defined in this discussion (to my knowledge). You can be substantially certain that many things will offend some people. I do not believe that is sufficient grounds to limit that freedom. My point opens an ugly can of worms, like your noose argument. I am still willing to accept that for the sake of freedom. Your intestinal fortitude and sensibilities may not be prepared to deal with that exchange. So be it. We disagree on that then.

Blaakmaan -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 5:23:24 PM)
Then tell me, at what point is something so offensive that even you would ban it? Or is there such a point?

Pulpsmack -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 7:30:53 PM)
I don't think there is a point that I would ban something based on offensiveness. Media containing murder (snuff), rape or unmentionables, for example, can be banned and regulated on other and better grounds. But I believe (contrary to the trail blazed by the Supreme Court) in the freedom of all speech and expression, including hatred, because what we all may agree upon as offensive today is at risk of becoming the tip of the iceberg in the future. I think we are seeing that today, and this "hate speech/hate crime" issue is one of the absurd byproducts.

caitlyn -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 8:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan "Get over it"??? I won't even dignify that with a response... I think you already did. [;)] It's easy to take a statement like 'get over it' as offensive, but then that supports the point that maybe you are being just a little thin skinned. Tell me, when are you planning on getting over it? Keep in mind that getting over it, doesn't mean, forget the tragic wrongs done to your people, but at some point, doesn't a person have to move on? Are you going to get over it later today? How about tomorrow? How about in a hundred tomorrows? You weren't born a slave. Your father wasn't born a slave. Your grandfather wasn't born a slave. All of you probably suffered prejudice because of your race. It's out there, and it's ugly ... but you know, a lot of other people have suffered wrongs too. I will happily trade my first twelve years, for yours. I don't even know you, but would make that switch without question. So, take offense if you like, and be offended by some strips of cloth if that gets you through the day. Or, you can move on, and be better for it. It might seem like a simplistic statement, but if you carry this forever, you will have it forever. [:D] Peace ...

Alumbrado -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 8:39:02 PM)
Muuuuuusssstt puuuussshhh goalposts baaaack......[8\|] One more time, the potential for offense in wearing a Rebel flag, lies in the recent past...the New South of 1950 through today, not in a bunch of harmless Civil War buffs. It is throwing Jim Crow, Bull Connor, George Wallace and David Dukes in people's faces. It evokes those who advocate 'If we had our way, you wouldn't even be able to vote, much less attend this school'. The assertion that 'some people are just too sensitive to get over slavery' is a total red herring regarding the OP. And I'll note that no one has answered the question as to why other offensive symbols should be barred from schools, but not this one.

caitlyn -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/20/2007 8:53:15 PM)
Well, I don't agree. If the events of more modern days, bring you back to the wrongs of the past, then you never let the past go in the first place ... and you know, I know a bit about letting things go. I know this sounds harsh ... it just is, what it is. If a person is offended by some strips of fucking cloth, they maybe they are just weak. This is my anti-PC post for the week. [;)]

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875