|
jlf1961 -> RE: First it was press one for english, now.... (3/1/2014 1:14:01 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
The Hindu swastika is the world's oldest recorded swastika. I'm not sure anything has been discovered within North America that would date older than the artifacts from the oldest Hindu settlements. Not to mention that the migration pattern that took humans into North America came from Asia - they didn't materialize out of nowhere. If they had the swastika, they brought it with them from Asia.
As for your attempt to distinguish Nazi symbolism from confederate symbolism - I'm sorry, but it's not convincing. You say, "Now considering that even before WW2 started, under that flag, Hitler was already oppressing Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and other non Germanic people, which was all in his book where he discussed the design of HIS flag, how else could it not be the symbol of racism?". Yes and explain to me how the confederate flag had an existence prior to the confederacy, a coalition of slave owning states where whites were already oppressing blacks?? In other words a slave society chooses a flag to represent itself. By your own words, "how else could it not be a symbol of racism". Yes, exactly my point.
Name me one confederate state that didn't have slaves?? Or are you going to argue that slavery as practiced in the U.S. was NOT racist (!?) Slavery was part of the culture and economy of the confederate states. Any symbol of the confederate states would necessarily also be a symbol of their culture and economy. Or are you suggesting the confederate flags should only be understood as a statement against the Union, but have ZERO connection to the culture and economy of the confederate states? So you see the flag as ONLY anti-Union? If the flag is ONLY anti-Union and doesn't represent Southern culture, then HOW is it a symbol of "Southern pride", a cultural identity?? Oh, I see. Southerners want to be able to use it ONLY to represent "Southern pride" but not "antebellum Southern culture". Yes I see how effectively that works:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/ole-miss-stuggling-to-stay-ahead-of-its-past/ndYjt/
You are quite right, Hinduism developed in India around 2000 BCE.
Beringia, the land bridge that connected Asia to America did indeed exist.
However, the claim that Hindus circa 2000 BCE took the swastika has a bit of a problem, you see that land bridge that would have been the way for the Hindu people to get to North America kinda sorta was submerged about 11000 years ago.
Now unless you are suggesting that people from India sailed through the Indian Ocean into the Pacific and across to North America around 4000 years ago, the swastika as used by Native Americans was probably a result of independent development, you know, like the pre Colombian pyramids in the Mayan, Aztec and Teotihuacan cultures.
Now as for southern states having slaves, you are indeed correct, southern states did have slaves, as did a few northern states. Did the majority of southern citizens own slaves, no.
Did southern state governments see a problem with a slave based agrarian economy, yes, and long before the civil war.
Did the majority of southern citizens agree or defend slavery, no. You see, with the exception of the large plantations, there was not really a widespread use of slaves. The majority of the southern population were poor, subsistence farmers. They could not afford slaves even if they wanted them, and really could not compete with the plantations since they had basically free labor.
I had an ancestor in my paternal line that fought for the south.
Here is the important facts about this man.
1) He was a half breed but was listed as a Cherokee tribal member by the US Government.
2) His grandfather and most of his maternal relatives died on the trail of tears. The forced migration by the US government of Native American tribes in the south that had been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, who's ruling was ignored by Andrew Jackson, who ordered thousands of Native Americans from the southeast to Oklahoma, most died on the way.
3) He was not a slave owner.
His reason to serve the south in the civil war, along with hundreds of other Cherokee and southern native Americans, revenge.
The reason poor non slave owning southerners fought for the south, other than being drafted and given no choice, because the north was taxing them to death.
You see, the North had long been discriminating against Native Americans, non-whites, before the civil war.
I guess the southern states proposals to end slavery without bankrupting southern slave owners is a sign that they were really interested in keeping slavery?
Let me ask you this.
You are a business owner, a manufacturer of goods, and 90% of your capital investment is tied up in what ever you use to make your goods.
Now the government comes along and outlaws that capital investment, and tells you to find another way to do it, and by the way, you aint getting a dime for the equipment you cant use.
What is going to happen to your business?
Slaves were 90% of a plantation owners investment. Northern banks in abolitionist states actually used them as collateral for loans. (as a person I despise and hate the concept of slavery, as a bank, I condone the owning of slaves since I can make money if the loan is defaulted)
You know what these abolitionist owned banks did when they foreclosed on a defaulted plantation owner's loan? They sold all capital assets. You know, land, farm equipment, livestock (slaves=livestock) to recoup their losses.
Now, please tell me who is the racist? The southern land owners who are willing to give up slaves but don't want to lose their fucking shirts in the process or the Abolitionists running the banks that will sell the slaves as livestock if the loan is defaulted?
When did the confederate battle flag come to represent a racist movement, 1950!
It seems to me that if these northern abolitionist bankers meant what they preached, they would jump at the chance to free slaves when they foreclosed on a loan, don't you?
Another point, abolitionists were against slavery, but not in favor of equal rights.
Here is my proof.
White abolitionists were not in favor of black officers or NCO's in Union army units consisting of black soldiers.
Abolitionists were all for free blacks, but not in the north, anywhere else was fine.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves only, it did not give them equal rights, or any rights at all. Lincoln was anti slavery but did not support equal rights.
Hell it took Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's vice president, and his successor to give the freed slaves the right to own land, not much else.
The United States was all for free blacks, but other than that, they were left swinging in the wind.
The US navy felt that black sailors were good for nothing more than stewards onboard ships, they were not allowed to perform any kind of combat duties until mid way through WW2.
The US Army was segregated until after WW2.
Segregation was the norm in southern states until the 60's and the US government did not even address the problem before then. You have heard of the Jim Crow laws? Yes they were the norm in many southern states, but why was it not a problem until the fifties and sixties?
You know the cause of the racism in the south?
Hint, it was not the fact that slaves were freed.
Racism in the south stemmed from what happened after the civil war. Look up Carpetbagger, or the laws that governed reconstruction. You had southern land owners that lost everything, mills and houses burned by Union Army troops, land taken and given to freed blacks without compensation by Union officers in charge of southern areas during reconstruction. Whites, former slave owners and non slave owners, put off their land in favor of freed blacks.
Not to mention Union black military units commanded by white officers who were ordered to loot southern plantations and towns by white officers and then the white officer sending the stolen property north to either be sold or to furnish their own homes. Black soldiers ordered to take all the food from southern farms and towns by white officers.
White southerners that stood up to this treatment during the civil war were shot on site, after the civil war, jailed.
And guess what, this was all justified by the simple fact the south lost.
Now, do you understand why the hatred started?
|
|
|
|
