man i don't give a fuck who seceded from who. you don't fly the rebel flag in 2009 and get off scott free from the consequences of doing so
it's a racist symbol
Youse guys keep saying that. Go to any number of reservations with the United States flag and ask some of the old timers there how they feel about it.
You keep bringing this up as if it has any bearing.
Well, to be (obviously) honest I'm still trying to figure out if this thread is intended to debate anything or if it's just a general racial thread. It keeps acting like it may be a debate but then it goes right back to bashing so I may as well join in.
man i don't give a fuck who seceded from who. you don't fly the rebel flag in 2009 and get off scott free from the consequences of doing so
it's a racist symbol
Youse guys keep saying that. Go to any number of reservations with the United States flag and ask some of the old timers there how they feel about it.
this is an association that has become attached to the flag over time
confederate flag was found around the protection of the right of slavery. founded on the protection of the right of slavery.
they are not comparable
True. By being a slave your life had some monetary value. By being a Native American you were just a waste of space.
this is not what is being debated.
american indian policy is at best, tangentially related to the confederate flag.
Casual Eddy on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
But what about all the GOOD things the Confederacy did?
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
When it's gotten to the point when my elementary school history lessons were letting us all know that Christopher Columbus was a greedy slaver, I think we as a nation have become good and ashamed of the way we have mistreated Native Americans in the past.
People who fly the Confederate flag demonstrate a stunning lack of shame.
When it's gotten to the point when my elementary school history lessons were letting us all know that Christopher Columbus was a greedy slaver, I think we as a nation have become good and ashamed of the way we have mistreated Native Americans in the past.
man i don't give a fuck who seceded from who. you don't fly the rebel flag in 2009 and get off scott free from the consequences of doing so
it's a racist symbol
Youse guys keep saying that. Go to any number of reservations with the United States flag and ask some of the old timers there how they feel about it.
this is an association that has become attached to the flag over time
confederate flag was found around the protection of the right of slavery. founded on the protection of the right of slavery.
they are not comparable
True. By being a slave your life had some monetary value. By being a Native American you were just a waste of space.
this is not what is being debated.
american indian policy is at best, tangentially related to the confederate flag.
Have you even been reading any of this (recent) thread? There's not much debating going on. It's a few posts followed by pointing fingers and cries of racism.
Although I certainly haven't read the entire thread so feel free to insult me again.
Have you even been reading any of this (recent) thread? There's not much debating going on. It's a few posts followed by pointing fingers and cries of racism.
Although I certainly haven't read the entire thread so feel free to insult me again.
Either join in the debate/discussion/whatever the fuck you want to call it, or get the fuck out of the thread. Trolling the thread pretending to be above it all while acting like a complete douche is not an option.
man i don't give a fuck who seceded from who. you don't fly the rebel flag in 2009 and get off scott free from the consequences of doing so
it's a racist symbol
Youse guys keep saying that. Go to any number of reservations with the United States flag and ask some of the old timers there how they feel about it.
We also keep saying that it's not the only fucking thing the U.S. Flag is part of. Several hundred years old flags have a long, long history behind them. ALL of them have something bad behind them. But the Confederacy has, like the Nazi Flag, NOTHING but horrible things behind it. Slavery. Treason. Death.
Hurrgh. Even if there had been an infantry unit of kittens and lollipops in the Confederate Army, it doesn't change the fact that they committed treason so they could keep slaves.
How can these retards celebrate the Confederacy and call themselves patriots right after that?
Have you even been reading any of this (recent) thread? There's not much debating going on. It's a few posts followed by pointing fingers and cries of racism.
Although I certainly haven't read the entire thread so feel free to insult me again.
Either join in the debate/discussion/whatever the fuck you want to call it, or get the fuck out of the thread. Trolling the thread pretending to be above it all while acting like a complete douche is not an option.
When and what have I said that leads you to believe I am pretending to be above it all? If you would rather I didn't bring up semi-related topics that loosely tie into the discussion (but not squarely tied to either side), that's one thing.
But to call me a troll or a douche without reason is another. Especially when I have a pretty fucking good reputation of being a calm, levelheaded person, on the forums, and on game servers. As mentioned in the spoilered part of my signature.
But what about all the GOOD things the Confederacy did?
They made some great cotton.
Actually, how productive was the Confederacy during the war?
It's my understanding, not very - the south at that time was largely agrarian, with only a few large cities capable of producing any real war materials. They did trade abroad with other countries to bring in other materials, but a Union blockade really prevented much from getting through.
Also, another semi-related fact I forgot to mention.
When are yall gonna start hating on the Southern Baptist Convention which was formed only because of the slavery issue, rather than a flag, which was associated with much more?
Also, another semi-related fact I forgot to mention.
When are yall gonna start hating on the Southern Baptist Convention which was formed only because of the slavery issue, rather than a flag, which was associated with much more?
I thought we hating baptists was just assumed.
Couscous on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Also, another semi-related fact I forgot to mention.
When are yall gonna start hating on the Southern Baptist Convention which was formed only because of the slavery issue, rather than a flag, which was associated with much more?
1. Who says any of us are fans of the Southern Baptist Convention?
Also, another semi-related fact I forgot to mention.
When are yall gonna start hating on the Southern Baptist Convention which was formed only because of the slavery issue, rather than a flag, which was associated with much more?
I like this assumption that somehow we all think Jerry Falwell was a paragon of virtue.
You want us to hate on the bigoted, xenophobic, anti-intellectual rednecked retards who make up the majority of Southern Baptists? Sure! Where would you like us to start? Make sure you've got a lot of time, because it's going to take awhile.
Thanatos on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Also, another semi-related fact I forgot to mention.
When are yall gonna start hating on the Southern Baptist Convention which was formed only because of the slavery issue, rather than a flag, which was associated with much more?
I like this assumption that somehow we all think Jerry Falwell was a paragon of virtue.
You want us to hate on the bigoted, xenophobic, anti-intellectual rednecked retards who make up the majority of Southern Baptists? Sure! Where would you like us to start? Make sure you've got a lot of time, because it's going to take awhile.
I thought we made it clear we don't just hate the flag, we hate the dub motherfuckers who wave it.
Also, another semi-related fact I forgot to mention.
When are yall gonna start hating on the Southern Baptist Convention which was formed only because of the slavery issue, rather than a flag, which was associated with much more?
I like this assumption that somehow we all think Jerry Falwell was a paragon of virtue.
You want us to hate on the bigoted, xenophobic, anti-intellectual rednecked retards who make up the majority of Southern Baptists? Sure! Where would you like us to start? Make sure you've got a lot of time, because it's going to take awhile.
I went to a school that's regarded as the "crown jewel of the SBC."
Fuck those ignorant douche nozzles. Our library was fucking gutted after they took Shorter over again.
You want us to hate on the bigoted, xenophobic, anti-intellectual rednecked retards who make up the majority of Southern Baptists? Sure! Where would you like us to start? Make sure you've got a lot of time, because it's going to take awhile.
That's a bit much I think. Southern Baptist is pretty much the mainstream denomination in the South, so I doubt it has larger than it's fair share of idiots, to be honest. Especially since going to church is very deeply ingrained into the culture, so you don't just attract zealots.
I mean, my Southern Baptist group I was involved with in college had several semi-regular members who were gay. And most of the other people were very politically and theologically moderate to liberal.
Sure, there are crazies there, but if you want to find the fringe, look at the pentacostal churches. I had a pentacostal friend whose church believed that the King James version was the only "true" version of the Bible and that women shouldn't be allowed to have short hair or wear anything but dresses.
man i don't give a fuck who seceded from who. you don't fly the rebel flag in 2009 and get off scott free from the consequences of doing so
it's a racist symbol
Youse guys keep saying that. Go to any number of reservations with the United States flag and ask some of the old timers there how they feel about it.
We also keep saying that it's not the only fucking thing the U.S. Flag is part of. Several hundred years old flags have a long, long history behind them. ALL of them have something bad behind them. But the Confederacy has, like the Nazi Flag, NOTHING but horrible things behind it. Slavery. Treason. Death.
Hurrgh. Even if there had been an infantry unit of kittens and lollipops in the Confederate Army, it doesn't change the fact that they committed treason so they could keep slaves.
How can these retards celebrate the Confederacy and call themselves patriots right after that?
Lets seperate the treason and the slavery here...
There's nothing necessarily unpatriotic or morally wrong with treason. It is punishable by death by the government, in the same way that standing on the railroad tracks is punishable by death by a frieght train, but there's nothing holy or sacrosanct about area on a map A vs area on a map B. When you start to attribute magical powers to whatever bits of land you happen to be standing on, well, that's when you start to get shit like the rebel flag-waving Confederates that you all are complaining about in the first place.
Jealous Deva on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
Treason or rebellion? Terrorism or freedom fighting? It's facile to say that a failed rebellion is treason, or a terrorist is any freedom fighter you don't agree with. But I think substantive judgments can be made according to the justness of the cause. I don't hesitate to call southern secession treason because there was no legitimate grievance. The rights of no southern states were in any way infringed during this time period; the only thing that had changed was the balance of power within the nation's democratic institutions. Absent any legitimate legal grievance, we have to conclude that southern secession was driven entirely by the economic interests reliant on slavery. This is why southern secession is reprehensible, and therefore treasonous.
Contrast this with the patriots in the American Revolution, who had a pretty obvious legitimate grievance (taxation without representation). The justification for revolution is much, much more sound than the justification for southern secession. This is why we consider the American Revolution a revolution or rebellion and not treason. The British opinion probably differs, or at least differed at the time, but I'd argue they are mistaken, since Parliament and the colonies did not have an equitable arrangement.
Treason or rebellion? Terrorism or freedom fighting? It's facile to say that a failed rebellion is treason, or a terrorist is any freedom fighter you don't agree with. But I think substantive judgments can be made according to the justness of the cause. I don't hesitate to call southern secession treason because there was no legitimate grievance. The rights of no southern states were in any way infringed during this time period; the only thing that had changed was the balance of power within the nation's democratic institutions. Absent any legitimate legal grievance, we have to conclude that southern secession was driven entirely by the economic interests reliant on slavery. This is why southern secession is reprehensible, and therefore treasonous.
Contrast this with the patriots in the American Revolution, who had a pretty obvious legitimate grievance (taxation without representation). The justification for revolution is much, much more sound than the justification for southern secession. This is why we consider the American Revolution a revolution or rebellion and not treason. The British opinion probably differs, or at least differed at the time, but I'd argue they are mistaken, since Parliament and the colonies did not have an equitable arrangement.
Eh, honestly, the whole "taxation without representation" thing is largely overblown. The Americas really weren't taxed that much; it was more about self-determination. However, that's still a way better reason to fight a war than preserving slavery.
Thanatos on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Treason or rebellion? Terrorism or freedom fighting? It's facile to say that a failed rebellion is treason, or a terrorist is any freedom fighter you don't agree with. But I think substantive judgments can be made according to the justness of the cause. I don't hesitate to call southern secession treason because there was no legitimate grievance. The rights of no southern states were in any way infringed during this time period; the only thing that had changed was the balance of power within the nation's democratic institutions. Absent any legitimate legal grievance, we have to conclude that southern secession was driven entirely by the economic interests reliant on slavery. This is why southern secession is reprehensible, and therefore treasonous.
Contrast this with the patriots in the American Revolution, who had a pretty obvious legitimate grievance (taxation without representation). The justification for revolution is much, much more sound than the justification for southern secession. This is why we consider the American Revolution a revolution or rebellion and not treason. The British opinion probably differs, or at least differed at the time, but I'd argue they are mistaken, since Parliament and the colonies did not have an equitable arrangement.
Neither did Canada and Britain but they didn't start a rebellion over it.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Neither did Canada and Britain but they didn't start a rebellion over it.
Whatever. They could have, and I wouldn't call it treason.
Dictionary:
treason
(trē'zən) pronunciation
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Sounds like treason to me.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Neither did Canada and Britain but they didn't start a rebellion over it.
Whatever. They could have, and I wouldn't call it treason.
Dictionary:
treason
(trē'zən) pronunciation
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Sounds like treason to me.
The question is did the colonies owe Britain allegiance? Did Britain have legitimate sovereignty? That's a debatable point. It's not so debatable when it comes to the Confederacy.
Neither did Canada and Britain but they didn't start a rebellion over it.
Whatever. They could have, and I wouldn't call it treason.
Dictionary:
treason
(trē'zən) pronunciation
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Sounds like treason to me.
The question is did the colonies owe Britain allegiance? Did Britain have legitimate sovereignty? That's a debatable point. It's not so debatable when it comes to the Confederacy.
You are entirely correct. I say this preemptively before somebody comes in here and starts yammering on about states' rights. The Constitution is like a contract between states - you can't just declare it void and leave it once your obligation comes due.
Neither did Canada and Britain but they didn't start a rebellion over it.
Whatever. They could have, and I wouldn't call it treason.
Dictionary:
treason
(trē'zən) pronunciation
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Sounds like treason to me.
The question is did the colonies owe Britain allegiance? Did Britain have legitimate sovereignty? That's a debatable point. It's not so debatable when it comes to the Confederacy.
The whole concept of 'owing' allegiance is bunk. And the only legitimate sovereignity is a majority plebicite (which would have almost certainly voted for secession in the case of the southern states).
The civil war was justified because it was against slavery, not because it was against secession, it's never moral for a government to hold hostage a people who do not want to be ruled under it.
Jealous Deva on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
Jealous Deva did you just post two totally opposite viewpoints one right after the other or am I crazy
The whole concept of 'owing' allegiance is bunk. And the only legitimate sovereignity is a majority plebicite (which would have almost certainly voted for secession in the case of the southern states).
The whole concept of 'owing' allegiance is bunk. And the only legitimate sovereignity is a majority plebicite (which would have almost certainly voted for secession in the case of the southern states).
This is a load of crap.
Why would a simple majority be required instead of a 2/3 majority? I think that a state seceding would be just as important as a constitutional amendment.
Jealous Deva did you just post two totally opposite viewpoints one right after the other or am I crazy
Nope. The Civil War was justified because it was to free a people who were being held in slavery against their will. This has nothing to do with the fact that it's not justifiable for a government (any government) to claim and hold by force land that people live on who do not wish to be under the authority of that government.
Jealous Deva did you just post two totally opposite viewpoints one right after the other or am I crazy
Nope. The Civil War was justified because it was to free a people who were being held in slavery against their will. This has nothing to do with the fact that it's not justifiable for a government (any government) to claim and hold by force land that people live on who do not wish to be under the authority of that government.
Um, I don't think the South would have voted to secede if everyone got to vote. You know, like the slaves that made up around 50% of the population of prewar Georgia.
Jealous Deva did you just post two totally opposite viewpoints one right after the other or am I crazy
Nope. The Civil War was justified because it was to free a people who were being held in slavery against their will. This has nothing to do with the fact that it's not justifiable for a government (any government) to claim and hold by force land that people live on who do not wish to be under the authority of that government.
There are greater evils and lesser evils.
My house secedes from the United States. I am the only one living in it, and therefore by majority vote (1-0) I declare my independence.
Posts
Well, to be (obviously) honest I'm still trying to figure out if this thread is intended to debate anything or if it's just a general racial thread. It keeps acting like it may be a debate but then it goes right back to bashing so I may as well join in.
True. By being a slave your life had some monetary value. By being a Native American you were just a waste of space.
sorry.
this is not what is being debated.
american indian policy is at best, tangentially related to the confederate flag.
People who fly the Confederate flag demonstrate a stunning lack of shame.
Actually, how productive was the Confederacy during the war?
And yet, the mistreatment continues.
You mean like losing the war?
WHOA
'Confederate History Month???'
http://hubpages.com/hub/Confederate-History-Month-Minorities-in-the-Army
:x
Have you even been reading any of this (recent) thread? There's not much debating going on. It's a few posts followed by pointing fingers and cries of racism.
Although I certainly haven't read the entire thread so feel free to insult me again.
We also keep saying that it's not the only fucking thing the U.S. Flag is part of. Several hundred years old flags have a long, long history behind them. ALL of them have something bad behind them. But the Confederacy has, like the Nazi Flag, NOTHING but horrible things behind it. Slavery. Treason. Death.
The two are not goddamn comparable.
Hurrgh. Even if there had been an infantry unit of kittens and lollipops in the Confederate Army, it doesn't change the fact that they committed treason so they could keep slaves.
How can these retards celebrate the Confederacy and call themselves patriots right after that?
When and what have I said that leads you to believe I am pretending to be above it all? If you would rather I didn't bring up semi-related topics that loosely tie into the discussion (but not squarely tied to either side), that's one thing.
But to call me a troll or a douche without reason is another. Especially when I have a pretty fucking good reputation of being a calm, levelheaded person, on the forums, and on game servers. As mentioned in the spoilered part of my signature.
It's my understanding, not very - the south at that time was largely agrarian, with only a few large cities capable of producing any real war materials. They did trade abroad with other countries to bring in other materials, but a Union blockade really prevented much from getting through.
When are yall gonna start hating on the Southern Baptist Convention which was formed only because of the slavery issue, rather than a flag, which was associated with much more?
I thought we hating baptists was just assumed.
1. Who says any of us are fans of the Southern Baptist Convention?
2. The Confederate flag stands for nothing else.
What are you doing?
You want us to hate on the bigoted, xenophobic, anti-intellectual rednecked retards who make up the majority of Southern Baptists? Sure! Where would you like us to start? Make sure you've got a lot of time, because it's going to take awhile.
I went to a school that's regarded as the "crown jewel of the SBC."
Fuck those ignorant douche nozzles. Our library was fucking gutted after they took Shorter over again.
That's a bit much I think. Southern Baptist is pretty much the mainstream denomination in the South, so I doubt it has larger than it's fair share of idiots, to be honest. Especially since going to church is very deeply ingrained into the culture, so you don't just attract zealots.
I mean, my Southern Baptist group I was involved with in college had several semi-regular members who were gay. And most of the other people were very politically and theologically moderate to liberal.
Sure, there are crazies there, but if you want to find the fringe, look at the pentacostal churches. I had a pentacostal friend whose church believed that the King James version was the only "true" version of the Bible and that women shouldn't be allowed to have short hair or wear anything but dresses.
Lets seperate the treason and the slavery here...
There's nothing necessarily unpatriotic or morally wrong with treason. It is punishable by death by the government, in the same way that standing on the railroad tracks is punishable by death by a frieght train, but there's nothing holy or sacrosanct about area on a map A vs area on a map B. When you start to attribute magical powers to whatever bits of land you happen to be standing on, well, that's when you start to get shit like the rebel flag-waving Confederates that you all are complaining about in the first place.
Contrast this with the patriots in the American Revolution, who had a pretty obvious legitimate grievance (taxation without representation). The justification for revolution is much, much more sound than the justification for southern secession. This is why we consider the American Revolution a revolution or rebellion and not treason. The British opinion probably differs, or at least differed at the time, but I'd argue they are mistaken, since Parliament and the colonies did not have an equitable arrangement.
Neither did Canada and Britain but they didn't start a rebellion over it.
Whatever. They could have, and I wouldn't call it treason.
Dictionary:
treason
(trē'zən) pronunciation
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Sounds like treason to me.
The question is did the colonies owe Britain allegiance? Did Britain have legitimate sovereignty? That's a debatable point. It's not so debatable when it comes to the Confederacy.
You are entirely correct. I say this preemptively before somebody comes in here and starts yammering on about states' rights. The Constitution is like a contract between states - you can't just declare it void and leave it once your obligation comes due.
The whole concept of 'owing' allegiance is bunk. And the only legitimate sovereignity is a majority plebicite (which would have almost certainly voted for secession in the case of the southern states).
The civil war was justified because it was against slavery, not because it was against secession, it's never moral for a government to hold hostage a people who do not want to be ruled under it.
Edit: Nevermind. I mistook you for Matrijs.
Get an avatar, both of you!
Why would a simple majority be required instead of a 2/3 majority? I think that a state seceding would be just as important as a constitutional amendment.
Nope. The Civil War was justified because it was to free a people who were being held in slavery against their will. This has nothing to do with the fact that it's not justifiable for a government (any government) to claim and hold by force land that people live on who do not wish to be under the authority of that government.
There are greater evils and lesser evils.
My house secedes from the United States. I am the only one living in it, and therefore by majority vote (1-0) I declare my independence.