Should The Conferdate Flag Be Banned Entirely?

Page 4 of 7 [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Should The Confederate Flag Be Banned Entirely?
Yes, because it is a symbol of racism. 35%  35%  [ 9 ]
No, because it is a symbol of Southern pride. 35%  35%  [ 9 ]
Does it matter? It will put back up regardless of what the people think. 31%  31%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 26

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

23 Jun 2015, 6:47 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
If the Confederate Flag is banned, what does it mean for Dukes of Hazzard reruns?


Never fear - till it's revealed that the Duke boys were actually government agents, posing as rednecks, trying to bust Boss Hogg and his corrupt, inept police force, I think the General Lee will go untouched. :lol:



Don't be so sure. In the movie, the General Lee's scrubbed clean. Nothing on top.

Warner Bros already distanced themselves from the controversial flag:

http://screencrush.com/dukes-of-hazzard-flag/



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,416
Location: Long Island, New York

23 Jun 2015, 7:04 pm

Walmart, Amazon, Sears, eBay to stop selling Confederate flag merchandise


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

It is Autism Acceptance Month

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

23 Jun 2015, 7:10 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:

So, more demand (and cash) for those who will sell it.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Jun 2015, 7:11 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Those Democrats in question were white, southern Democrats[.]

Indeed. That was my point. Their actions represented the Democratic Party as a whole as much as anyone between the 1850s and 1980. That they benefited for their first 70 years or more from the actions of others including the Ku Klux Klan speaks volumes of where the party's loyalties rested.

Is there any logical repudiation of a party with such a history?


No, they represented the conservative wing of the Democratic party, which was mainly in the south. After all, how would you explain the pro-civil rights wing of the Democratic party if those sheeted bigots had represented all Democrats? It wasn't under a Republican administration that the Voters Rights act was established.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

23 Jun 2015, 7:25 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
No, they represented the conservative wing of the Democratic [P]arty, which was mainly in the south....

In for a wing, in for a party. I agree, however, that the northern Democrats tolerated the southern Democrats for the sake of remaining relevant to and somewhat successful in national politics. But, that fact, on its own, is also pretty damning. They sold out to the southern Democrats in exchange for winning nationally.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

23 Jun 2015, 7:42 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No, they represented the conservative wing of the Democratic [P]arty, which was mainly in the south....

In for a wing, in for a party. I agree, however, that the northern Democrats tolerated the southern Democrats for the sake of remaining relevant to and somewhat successful in national politics. But, that fact, on its own, is also pretty damning. They sold out to the southern Democrats in exchange for winning nationally.


Thank you! I swear I get nauseous sometimes at these relentless appeals to history, in order to say "well this is the racist party", instead of critically assessing the particulars of what is going on right now. Either primary party ends up looking just as bad anyways.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

23 Jun 2015, 8:17 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
Jacoby wrote:

What about the fact that slavery existed much longer under the flag of the United States? Singling out the Confederate flag to me seems like an attempt to pawn off a dark aspect of our nation's history as some vanquished foreign apparition when its apart of all our history. I get that its a symbol to rally against and if people want to take it down then that's their choice, I don't see any reason for it to banned.


The difference is that the US flag and the country it represents is a work in progress. We're still trying to make that more perfect union. We should never forget the mistakes and injustices committed under the flag, but that's not what the flag stands for today.

The problem with confederate flags is that they're kinda stuck in time. It was originally used as the battlefield symbol of a White Supremacist government, then it was used as the symbol of a domestic terrorist organization...

Sure, you could argue that most individuals (at least today) who fly that flag aren't active, violent racists, but every official use of that flag has been in the name of violent suppression of black American citizens.

It is not unreasonable for people to object to having this flag fly over government property. Especially when that government is now supposed to serve everyone equally, regardless of race.


I'm not sure I'd say the the Confederate flag was the symbol of the KKK, they might of utilized it but they also have extensively wrapped themselves in the flag of United States as well. The Klan started out in the South after the Civil War but it spread much further than that, northern racism deserves much more attention than it gets. I doubt many people think of the cross as being associated with the Klan and fwiw far more people have suffered under the cross than the Confederate battle flag or the flag of the United States. That's my problem here, why is it that the Confederate battle flag is singled out as this evil thing when evil has been committed under every flag? The whole work in progress thing doesn't really excuse the crimes which continue to be committed even today, someone could just as easily say the Confederacy was a work in progress and that eventually it would reformed itself as well. You can agree or disagree with that last part there, my point was that you can pretty much justifiably take issue with almost any flag or symbol so why is one okay but not others? You can defend all of them, the confederate flag to many in the South is a symbol of Southern pride to recognize their ancestors that fought and died under it( something like 30% of white men in South at the time died, most of which didn't own any slaves) So while the flag of the US might mean something to you, it might mean something entirely different to someone else and I can't say Native Americans for example have any less of grievance towards the flag of the US than blacks might with the Confederate flag. I actually think there are some colleges around the US that are trying remove displays of the US flag because whatever group there sees it as a symbol of oppression.

I don't care if they want to display the flag or not, there is a process to removing it in SC state law and if that's what the people want then by all means but I think its silly the demonization that has happened and the lack of consistency.

thought this was an interesting blog on The Hill

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/s ... -flag-goes



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

23 Jun 2015, 8:20 pm

Tomorrow, if it's still being aired like the cable guide says it is, I am going to watch Dukes of Hazzard when it comes on TVland just to see if the Dodge Charger still has the name General Lee and the stars and bars on top or if they somehow edited it out, or, if they stopped airing the show altogether.



mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

23 Jun 2015, 8:34 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:


Great, where am I going to buy Pantera merch now? :P



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Jun 2015, 9:00 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No, they represented the conservative wing of the Democratic [P]arty, which was mainly in the south....

In for a wing, in for a party. I agree, however, that the northern Democrats tolerated the southern Democrats for the sake of remaining relevant to and somewhat successful in national politics. But, that fact, on its own, is also pretty damning. They sold out to the southern Democrats in exchange for winning nationally.


Or did they sell out the southern wing because civil rights was the right thing to do?
Incidentally, not all young southerners agreed with the sins of their ancestors - Bill Clinton had made his hatred of racism abundantly clear.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

23 Jun 2015, 9:10 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No, they represented the conservative wing of the Democratic [P]arty, which was mainly in the south....

In for a wing, in for a party. I agree, however, that the northern Democrats tolerated the southern Democrats for the sake of remaining relevant to and somewhat successful in national politics. But, that fact, on its own, is also pretty damning. They sold out to the southern Democrats in exchange for winning nationally.

Or did they sell out the southern wing because civil rights was the right thing to do?
Incidentally, not all young southerners agreed with the sins of their ancestors - Bill Clinton had made his hatred of racism abundantly clear.

DailyCaller.com: "Confederate Flag Campaign Pins of Both Clintons' Pasts" (June 23, 2015)
( http://www.dailycaller.com/2015/06/23/c ... tons-pasts )

DailyCaller.com: "Flashback: As Governor, Bill Clinton Honored Confederacy on Arkansas Flag" (June 20, 2015)
( http://www.dailycaller.com/2015/06/20/f ... ansas-flag ) [/quote]


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

23 Jun 2015, 9:27 pm

You know the weird thing about the conservative faithful is that they attack an enemy that doesn't exist.

I mean instead of knowing their enemy and hitting it at home and/or where it counts. They rail at something that liberals don't even recognize instead.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

23 Jun 2015, 9:31 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No, they represented the conservative wing of the Democratic [P]arty, which was mainly in the south....

In for a wing, in for a party. I agree, however, that the northern Democrats tolerated the southern Democrats for the sake of remaining relevant to and somewhat successful in national politics. But, that fact, on its own, is also pretty damning. They sold out to the southern Democrats in exchange for winning nationally.
man you love to move the goalposts don't you?
How is "not being racist as*holes" selling someone out?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Jun 2015, 10:02 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No, they represented the conservative wing of the Democratic [P]arty, which was mainly in the south....

In for a wing, in for a party. I agree, however, that the northern Democrats tolerated the southern Democrats for the sake of remaining relevant to and somewhat successful in national politics. But, that fact, on its own, is also pretty damning. They sold out to the southern Democrats in exchange for winning nationally.

Or did they sell out the southern wing because civil rights was the right thing to do?
Incidentally, not all young southerners agreed with the sins of their ancestors - Bill Clinton had made his hatred of racism abundantly clear.

DailyCaller.com: "Confederate Flag Campaign Pins of Both Clintons' Pasts" (June 23, 2015)
( http://www.dailycaller.com/2015/06/23/c ... tons-pasts )

DailyCaller.com: "Flashback: As Governor, Bill Clinton Honored Confederacy on Arkansas Flag" (June 20, 2015)
( http://www.dailycaller.com/2015/06/20/f ... ansas-flag )
[/quote]

So Clinton played on the sentiments of his constituents. But how does that compare to his actions?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

23 Jun 2015, 10:05 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
So Clinton played on the sentiments of his constituents. But how does that compare to his actions?

Pandering is now a virtue?


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

23 Jun 2015, 10:47 pm

I still don't see the big deal.

The Stars and Stripes are worst if you use oppression, bigotry, and violence as your yardstick.

Hell, the US went to war and killed far more people than the CSA ever did back in 2003 with Iraq, and for arguably worst reasons (they got banned weapons!). So, you can't really use "the US has changed" as an argument.