ADVERTISEMENT

The Stars and Bars

The Germans made the Nazi flag

and other Nazi and Hitler paraphernalia illegal shortly after the war. The Swastika is taboo throughout Europe and the western world. Yet European anti semitism is rampant and getting worse. Banning or otherwise discouraging symbols of hate make all the nonhaters feel better, but little else is accomplished.

Again...I'm not interested in banning the Confederate flag. I just don't think state endorsement of the flag is a great idea and humbly suggest that anti-Semitism in Europe might even be a little bit worse if a couple of nations "honored" their heritage by flying the Nazi flag.
 
Why is that a bad thing? Why is being able to fly the Confederate flag without racial baggage a good thing? Are you as seemingly hopeful of Germans being able to fly the Nazi flag without anti-Semitic baggage?

FWIW, I think that people should fly whatever flags they want and deal with the reactions they get for the symbolism associated with those choices. I don't think anyone should try to make it illegal to fly the Confederate flag by any stretch of the imagination. My concern lies in opposing states flying the flag in official capacities in a place of honor. IMHO, the day where the Confederate Flag doesn't have racial baggage is a bad day because it means we're forgetting what that war was about.
We should never ever forget our history but to me there is such thing as forgiveness and the bad connotations of things should go away. I had a friend that hurt me really bad one time (hard to do with me) and I struggled for a while to forgive him for what he done but I finally did and we are still friends now. Have I forgotten what he done? Not if I think back I haven't BUT when I talk to him or see him I don't automatically think of what he done. As a matter of fact I never do that when I see or talk to him but I might randomly recall the incident sometimes.

I agree with you about states flying the flag.
 
That gets me into trouble a lot. I assume everyone knows that, to my dismay you have to spell it out. The flag is offensive to people so don't fly it. It isn't like it is offensive to a fringe group of nuts but it is offensive to a large portion of our population.
FWIW I don't think I've ever had anything with the confederate flag on it even though I grew up in the south. The area of the south where I grew up supported the north from what I can tell by reading things.
 
The Germans made the Nazi flag

and other Nazi and Hitler paraphernalia illegal shortly after the war. The Swastika is taboo throughout Europe and the western world. Yet European anti semitism is rampant and getting worse. Banning or otherwise discouraging symbols of hate make all the nonhaters feel better, but little else is accomplished.

Is it anti-semitism or anti-Israelism?

CoH, your linked article asked this question, and IMO it is a good question.

I can't help but think if Israel and the Palestinians came to an agreement and put the violence between them at rest that Israel would be a big time winner. Consistent with this, Jews everywhere would again be placed on a pedestal as they were following WWII.

Another benefit to an agreement would be the removal of an issue which helps divide the various factions in the Middle East. The ME needs Israel to be a model for all countries in the region rather than be seen as an anti-Arab (anti-Muslim) antagonist.
 
We should never ever forget our history but to me there is such thing as forgiveness and the bad connotations of things should go away.
Why should we want the Confederacy's "bad connotations" to go away? What good connotations could it possibly have?
 
We should never ever forget our history but to me there is such thing as forgiveness and the bad connotations of things should go away. I had a friend that hurt me really bad one time (hard to do with me) and I struggled for a while to forgive him for what he done but I finally did and we are still friends now. Have I forgotten what he done? Not if I think back I haven't BUT when I talk to him or see him I don't automatically think of what he done. As a matter of fact I never do that when I see or talk to him but I might randomly recall the incident sometimes.

I agree with you about states flying the flag.

If you're talking about forgiving the people who took part in slavery, that's not for me or really just about anybody else living to do. I'd agree that it's silly to castigate the South for the Civil War in the present. I'd agree that it's unfair and wrong to castigate Southerners as just a bunch of racist rednecks. But, I think the notion that we should let the Confederate flag be seen as just a charming bit of southern heritage nostalgia is equally silly. There's no concept of forgiveness towards a flag. It is what it is and, IMHO, the "bad connotations" of the flag shouldn't go away.

I don't equate Germans with anti-semites. I don't equate Southerners with racists. But, the Nazi flag unquestionably represents an anti-semitic ideal and the Confederate flag likewise represents a racist ideal.
 
Why should we want the Confederacy's "bad connotations" to go away? What good connotations could it possibly have?
I'm not saying the Confederacy's "bad connotations" should go away....that is part of history All I am saying is that people should be able to get so they can see the confederate flag and not immediately think something bad like I did my friend. For a while everytime I got a glimpse of him all the bad thoughts came back but I got over it.
 
Someone I met from Linton at Hoosier Boys State broke down during a discussion that his town still had a sundown sign as you entered Linton. He explained that it meant black people were not allowed in town after sundown. I never verified the signs were still up in 1981, but they were known to be in place during the late 60's. Does anyone remember seeing a sign like that?

Racism doesn't need a flag to exist. Banning the flag doesn't change those people that want to preserve the flag as a link to slavery. Imagine if they had been successful in the 1860's. How long would slavery have been the law of the land in the south? It is scary to think about.

The flag has no reason to be on public property and especially not at a state capital. I would think its use would have been discontinued once it became the choice of racist groups.
 
I'm not saying the Confederacy's "bad connotations" should go away....that is part of history All I am saying is that people should be able to get so they can see the confederate flag and not immediately think something bad like I did my friend.
What you're saying is incoherent. Whatever may be the case about your friend, the Confederate flag has always stood for white supremacy. There isn't anything to forgive or forget, there is just history -- a racist rebellious anti-Union history, of people who wanted the right to buy and sell black people like cattle. What exactly about this history do you want to forgive or forget?
 
Is it anti-semitism or anti-Israelism?

CoH, your linked article asked this question, and IMO it is a good question.

I can't help but think if Israel and the Palestinians came to an agreement and put the violence between them at rest that Israel would be a big time winner. Consistent with this, Jews everywhere would again be placed on a pedestal as they were following WWII.

Another benefit to an agreement would be the removal of an issue which helps divide the various factions in the Middle East. The ME needs Israel to be a model for all countries in the region rather than be seen as an anti-Arab (anti-Muslim) antagonist.

Is there a difference?

I fully understand the Israeli criticism from some quarters. But when you dig deeper into the cause and effect it is really about hating jews. I also agree that an agreements would solve a lot of issues around the world. But compromise and agreement is a product of Western thought. Most of the world does not use compromise and agreement for anything important.
 
Is there a difference?

I fully understand the Israeli criticism from some quarters. But when you dig deeper into the cause and effect it is really about hating jews. I also agree that an agreements would solve a lot of issues around the world. But compromise and agreement is a product of Western thought. Most of the world does not use compromise and agreement for anything important.

CoH, could you elaborate on why people hate Jews and give some examples of attempted compromise by Westerners which failed with those who don't share "Western thought"?
 
CoH, could you elaborate on why people hate Jews and give some examples of attempted compromise by Westerners which failed with those who don't share "Western thought"?

People really don't know why they hate jews.

Maybe this will help.

The ability to compromise and agree is a little more vague. While generalities always have exceptions, I would start a generalized answer by noting that in many parts of the world, agreement always requires bribery. This is true in the commercial and business world as well as in the diplomatic world. This is why our approach to middle east negotiations has always involved kicking in economic benefits to seal the deal. In Western social environments, people see the benefits of agreements for their own sake. This difference is a big part of the reason the 3rd world stays 3rd world.
 
I'm watching a show that was aired in 1997. White guy is forced to wear a Confederate flag shirt, because the guy who's mad at him knows he will get his butt kicked by all the Blacks in prison for wearing the shirt. So even 20 years ago,most people got that it has a racist perception.
 
The South raised flags, the North hired lawyers.

Some of the most protracted and strongly contested school integration bussing cases were in Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago and Denver and most of the race riots were in the North, not the South. The story we've heard since Charleston that only the South fought integration way more than a little off target.
 
Last edited:
The South raised flags, the North hired lawyers.

Some of the most protracted and strongly contested school integration bussing cases were in Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago and Denver and most of the race riots were in the North, not the South. The story we've heard since Charleston that only the South fought integration way more than a little off target.
No one disputes that and it is outside the argument.
 
Some of the most protracted and strongly contested school integration bussing cases were in Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago and Denver and most of the race riots were in the North, not the South.
Look, over there!
The story we've heard since Charleston that only the South fought integration way more than a little off target.
Where did you hear that story?
 
No one disputes that and it is outside the argument.

That's the problem Rock,

It is exactly the argument. You don't see it. I'm talking about racism and race issues and you are talking about flags. Suggesting that some guy who makes a video about the flag is "right on target" is nonsense. Those who smugly condemn the Stars and Bars and think they are doing or saying something important are intellectual light weights. It is easy to condemn and ban all evidence of the Confederacy. It is very difficult to talk about race. That is one thing that Holder was correct about--racial cowards. The hoo-rah-rah over the flag as a response to the horrible Charleston murders is stupid*. All those who see the racial problem through the flag only see shiny objects in their world view. We've come full circle. Early in this discussion Sope noted that there seems to be less racial strife in the South than in the North. He is correct. The Southern Black Churches gave us Martin Luther King Jr., the Northern Churches gave us Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton. The forgiveness shown by the survivors and family members--all black people-- of the dead at Charleston is the greatest and most important story to come out of that awful mass murder. Unfortunately there are no videos to link about people discussing that forgiveness. Compare their response to Michael Brown's family who said "Burn the bitch down" or to what happened in Baltimore. The flag has become the easy, and largely meaningless, shiny object.

*As I've said, I am thoroughly ambivalent about whether the flag stays or goes. If the SC authorities think it is time for it to go I'm okay with that. If descendants want to put the flag on the grave of their ancestors who fought in the war, I'm okay with that too.
 
That's the problem Rock,

It is exactly the argument. You don't see it. I'm talking about racism and race issues and you are talking about flags. Suggesting that some guy who makes a video about the flag is "right on target" is nonsense. Those who smugly condemn the Stars and Bars and think they are doing or saying something important are intellectual light weights. It is easy to condemn and ban all evidence of the Confederacy. It is very difficult to talk about race. That is one thing that Holder was correct about--racial cowards. The hoo-rah-rah over the flag as a response to the horrible Charleston murders is stupid*. All those who see the racial problem through the flag only see shiny objects in their world view. We've come full circle. Early in this discussion Sope noted that there seems to be less racial strife in the South than in the North. He is correct. The Southern Black Churches gave us Martin Luther King Jr., the Northern Churches gave us Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton. The forgiveness shown by the survivors and family members--all black people-- of the dead at Charleston is the greatest and most important story to come out of that awful mass murder. Unfortunately there are no videos to link about people discussing that forgiveness. Compare their response to Michael Brown's family who said "Burn the bitch down" or to what happened in Baltimore. The flag has become the easy, and largely meaningless, shiny object.

*As I've said, I am thoroughly ambivalent about whether the flag stays or goes. If the SC authorities think it is time for it to go I'm okay with that. If descendants want to put the flag on the grave of their ancestors who fought in the war, I'm okay with that too.

CoH, I pretty much agreed with your post until I came to this,

The Southern Black Churches gave us Martin Luther King Jr., the Northern Churches gave us Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton.

The Northern Black Churches didn't give us Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton, the media and our politics gave us Wright and Sharpton. CoH, the only way a statement such as yours can be made is to visit black churches across the North and somehow arrive at an accurate summary of what the churches are presenting.

CoH, by the way, I did some research on your thoughts about people around the globe hating Jews. I regrettably have to agree with your thinking. One of the best essays can be found here.
 
CoH, I pretty much agreed with your post until I came to this,

The Southern Black Churches gave us Martin Luther King Jr., the Northern Churches gave us Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton.

The Northern Black Churches didn't give us Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton, the media and our politics gave us Wright and Sharpton. CoH, the only way a statement such as yours can be made is to visit black churches across the North and somehow arrive at an accurate summary of what the churches are presenting.

CoH, by the way, I did some research on your thoughts about people around the globe hating Jews. I regrettably have to agree with your thinking. One of the best essays can be found here.

You are correct, of course

I simply intended to underline my point with a bumper sticker phrase.
 
It is exactly the argument. You don't see it. I'm talking about racism and race issues and you are talking about flags. Suggesting that some guy who makes a video about the flag is "right on target" is nonsense. Those who smugly condemn the Stars and Bars and think they are doing or saying something important are intellectual light weights. It is easy to condemn and ban all evidence of the Confederacy. It is very difficult to talk about race.
Different opinion:

The Robert E. Lee Problem

JUNE 26, 2015

David Brooks

The debate about the Charleston Bible study shooting has morphed into a debate about the Confederate battle flag and other symbols of the Confederacy. This is not a trivial sideshow. Racism is not just a personal prejudice and an evolutionary byproduct. It resurfaces year after year because it’s been woven by historical events into the fabric of American culture.

That culture is transmitted through the generations by the things we honor or don’t honor, by the symbols and names we celebrate and don’t celebrate. If we want to reduce racism we have to elevate the symbols that signify the struggle against racism and devalue the symbols that signify its acceptance.

Lowering the Confederate flag from public properties is thus an easy call. There are plenty of ways to celebrate Southern heritage and Southern life without choosing one so enmeshed in the fight to preserve slavery.

The harder call concerns Robert E. Lee. Should schools and other facilities be named after the great Confederate general, or should his name be removed and replaced?

The case for Lee begins with his personal character. It is almost impossible to imagine a finer and more considerate gentleman.

As a general and public figure, he was a man of impeccable honesty, integrity and kindness. As a soldier, he displayed courage from the beginning of his career straight through to the end. Despite his blunders at Gettysburg and elsewhere he was by many accounts the most effective general in the Civil War and maybe in American history. One biographer, Michael Korda, writes, “His generosity of spirit, undiminished by ideological or political differences, and even by the divisive, bloody Civil War, shines through in every letter he writes, and in every conversation of his that was reported or remembered.”

As a family man, he was surprisingly relaxed and affectionate. We think of him as a man of marble, but he loved having his kids jump into bed with him and tickle his feet. With his wife’s loving cooperation, he could write witty and even saucy letters to other women. He was devout in his faith, a gifted watercolorist, a lover of animals and a charming conversationalist.

In theory, he opposed slavery, once calling it “a moral and political evil in any country.” He opposed Southern secession, calling it “silly” and a rash revolutionary act. Moreover we shouldn’t be overly guilty of the sin of “presentism,” judging historical figures by contemporary standards.

The case against Lee begins with the fact that he betrayed his oath to serve the United States. He didn’t need to do it. The late historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor demonstrated that 40 percent of Virginia officers decided to remain with the Union forces, including members of Lee’s family.

As the historian Allen Guelzo emailed me, “He withdrew from the Army and took up arms in a rebellion against the United States.” He could have at least sat out the war. But, Guelzo continues, “he raised his hand against the flag and government he had sworn to defend. This more than fulfills the constitutional definition of treason.”

More germane, while Lee may have opposed slavery in theory he did nothing to eliminate or reduce it in practice. On the contrary, if he’d been successful in the central task of his life, he would have preserved and prolonged it.

Like Lincoln he did not believe African-Americans were yet capable of equality. Unlike Lincoln he accepted the bondage of other human beings with bland complaisance. His wife inherited 196 slaves from her father. Her father’s will (somewhat impractically) said they were to be freed, but Lee didn’t free them.

Lee didn’t enjoy owning slaves, but he was considered a hard taskmaster and he did sell some, breaking up families. Moreover, he supported the institution of slavery as a pillar of Confederate life. He defended the right of Southerners to take their slaves to the Western territories. He fundamentally believed the existence of slavery was, at least for a time, God’s will.

Every generation has a duty to root out the stubborn weed of prejudice from the culture. We do that, in part, through expressions of admiration and disdain. Given our history, it seems right to aggressively go the extra mile to show that prejudice is simply unacceptable, no matter how fine a person might otherwise be.

My own view is that we should preserve most Confederate memorials out of respect for the common soldiers. We should keep Lee’s name on institutions that reflect postwar service, like Washington and Lee University, where he was president. But we should remove Lee’s name from most schools, roads and other institutions, where the name could be seen as acceptance of what he did and stood for during the war.

This is not about rewriting history. It’s about shaping the culture going forward.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/o...-0731&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK
 
Different opinion:

The Robert E. Lee Problem

JUNE 26, 2015

David Brooks

The debate about the Charleston Bible study shooting has morphed into a debate about the Confederate battle flag and other symbols of the Confederacy. This is not a trivial sideshow. Racism is not just a personal prejudice and an evolutionary byproduct. It resurfaces year after year because it’s been woven by historical events into the fabric of American culture.

That culture is transmitted through the generations by the things we honor or don’t honor, by the symbols and names we celebrate and don’t celebrate. If we want to reduce racism we have to elevate the symbols that signify the struggle against racism and devalue the symbols that signify its acceptance.

Lowering the Confederate flag from public properties is thus an easy call. There are plenty of ways to celebrate Southern heritage and Southern life without choosing one so enmeshed in the fight to preserve slavery.

The harder call concerns Robert E. Lee. Should schools and other facilities be named after the great Confederate general, or should his name be removed and replaced?

The case for Lee begins with his personal character. It is almost impossible to imagine a finer and more considerate gentleman.

As a general and public figure, he was a man of impeccable honesty, integrity and kindness. As a soldier, he displayed courage from the beginning of his career straight through to the end. Despite his blunders at Gettysburg and elsewhere he was by many accounts the most effective general in the Civil War and maybe in American history. One biographer, Michael Korda, writes, “His generosity of spirit, undiminished by ideological or political differences, and even by the divisive, bloody Civil War, shines through in every letter he writes, and in every conversation of his that was reported or remembered.”

As a family man, he was surprisingly relaxed and affectionate. We think of him as a man of marble, but he loved having his kids jump into bed with him and tickle his feet. With his wife’s loving cooperation, he could write witty and even saucy letters to other women. He was devout in his faith, a gifted watercolorist, a lover of animals and a charming conversationalist.

In theory, he opposed slavery, once calling it “a moral and political evil in any country.” He opposed Southern secession, calling it “silly” and a rash revolutionary act. Moreover we shouldn’t be overly guilty of the sin of “presentism,” judging historical figures by contemporary standards.

The case against Lee begins with the fact that he betrayed his oath to serve the United States. He didn’t need to do it. The late historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor demonstrated that 40 percent of Virginia officers decided to remain with the Union forces, including members of Lee’s family.

As the historian Allen Guelzo emailed me, “He withdrew from the Army and took up arms in a rebellion against the United States.” He could have at least sat out the war. But, Guelzo continues, “he raised his hand against the flag and government he had sworn to defend. This more than fulfills the constitutional definition of treason.”

More germane, while Lee may have opposed slavery in theory he did nothing to eliminate or reduce it in practice. On the contrary, if he’d been successful in the central task of his life, he would have preserved and prolonged it.

Like Lincoln he did not believe African-Americans were yet capable of equality. Unlike Lincoln he accepted the bondage of other human beings with bland complaisance. His wife inherited 196 slaves from her father. Her father’s will (somewhat impractically) said they were to be freed, but Lee didn’t free them.

Lee didn’t enjoy owning slaves, but he was considered a hard taskmaster and he did sell some, breaking up families. Moreover, he supported the institution of slavery as a pillar of Confederate life. He defended the right of Southerners to take their slaves to the Western territories. He fundamentally believed the existence of slavery was, at least for a time, God’s will.

Every generation has a duty to root out the stubborn weed of prejudice from the culture. We do that, in part, through expressions of admiration and disdain. Given our history, it seems right to aggressively go the extra mile to show that prejudice is simply unacceptable, no matter how fine a person might otherwise be.

My own view is that we should preserve most Confederate memorials out of respect for the common soldiers. We should keep Lee’s name on institutions that reflect postwar service, like Washington and Lee University, where he was president. But we should remove Lee’s name from most schools, roads and other institutions, where the name could be seen as acceptance of what he did and stood for during the war.

This is not about rewriting history. It’s about shaping the culture going forward.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/o...-0731&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK

David Brooks is not always the sharpest knife in the drawer

(That's a colloquialism for "he is not smart")

There is a lot about that piece that is overly simplistic, shallow, lazy, and wrong.

First, Brooks seems to say that statutes, place names, and other accouterments of society shape a culture. No. Those things are the result of cultural norms, not the cause of them.

Second, We shape culture by ideas, morals, and human interaction. A statue of Robert E.Lee will not cause us to be one way or the other. Almost every community in the country has a boulevard or street neamed for Martin Luther King. We have a national holiday for him. Racism still exists. Street names don't affect that. Anti semitism is alive and doing very well in most of the world, particularly including France. Yet the Nazi symbol is one of the world's strongest taboos and is illegal in Germany.

Third, We have made huge strides in racial equality over the years with the trinkets of the confederacy on full display. Those haven't held us back. The perpetual racial divides are not the result of the stars and bars, but are the result of other forces seen by some as providing a base of political power and influence. Most of this is in northern states and cities where there is zero indications of the confederacy.

I have no problems with localities determining what historical figueres to recognize and how to bestow that recogniztion. I also understant that changing attitudes affect this. But for Brooks to suggest that can affect the "stubborn weed of prejudice" with this, or we can "shape the culture going forward" is beyond naive. It is stupid.

Finally, if we were to encourage society to destroy historical artifacts just because they reflect values we no longer hold, where does it end? There is already pressure in some quarters to ban the American Flag because it isn't "inclusive" or boycott a place because of something disagreeable. That is a dangerous path to go down. They could be coming for the Bill of Rights next.

I am reminded of what ISIS is doing now in many parts of the Middle East. It is destroying historic places, and smashing priceless ancient artifacts because they are not Islamic. I guess Brooks would find some measure of agreement with ISIS. I don't.
 
What say Constitution about State secession? Legal? Illegal? Not say nothing?

It's complicated

The constitution says that all who are born here are citizens of the US. So a state couldn't secede and deprive people of the rights and privileges of US citizenship. To me it is clear that secession like was done pre-civil war won't fly. But a plebiscite? Maybe, the law doesn't give a clear answer. Also, if the results of a plebiscite were in favor of secession, what should the response of the federal government be? Marshall law? War? If we ever get to the point where we must answer these questions, it probably won't make any difference anyway.
 
It's complicated

The constitution says that all who are born here are citizens of the US. So a state couldn't secede and deprive people of the rights and privileges of US citizenship. To me it is clear that secession like was done pre-civil war won't fly. But a plebiscite? Maybe, the law doesn't give a clear answer. Also, if the results of a plebiscite were in favor of secession, what should the response of the federal government be? Marshall law? War? If we ever get to the point where we must answer these questions, it probably won't make any difference anyway.
Here's a fun little gedankenexperiment: if your state voted to secede from the Union, would you move in order to protect your citizenship?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT