I was told by my Toby Keith friend that the only reason he wears something with a Confederate flag is to show that he's a rebel, like James Dean or somesuch.
Real rebels wear their own symbols.
I'm rebelling against rebellion by abiding by my work's business casual dress code (except for sneakers).
Reminds me of that Right wing band from the Terrible Tunes thread.
Their website said something like "they are bringing a new kind of rebellion to rock n' roll....it's called Conservatism"
This flag represents one thing: a country that existed purely to continue the practice of slavery. It's not just actions associated with the flag, it's not some ubiquitous symbol that's seen use in many cultures, it has a very specific context and a very specific meaning. There is only one thing it's associated with, and flying it today to honor what it represented is reprehensible.
lol did you realize at the time there was slavery still all over the world? I don't know what you're saying, to me, is if a country had slavery and then made their flag, that flag would now be made to represent slavery.
I like all the slighted attacks against my schooling and whatnot thrown into your responses. Regardless if my knowledge of the subject is lacking.
"Hey, guys, two plus two makes five."
"Uh, no, two plus two equals four."
"Huh. I was taught that two plus two makes five. I guess to each his own."
"Where were you taught that? Because that's not the case."
"Hey, don't be attacking my schooling! My knowledge in the subject is lacking!"
There were atleast 4 posts containing well worded responses explaining why i'm wrong that didn't attempt to belittle me or make some snide remark. Shame you couldnt contain your vitriol.
Oh my god, he called you out. How rude.
There's a difference between Debate and Berate. I explained later the manner in which it was presented to me and I understood it, and there was some discourse over how it could be conveyed that way and why certain interpretations understand it as such. Making a comment along the lines of 'my god thats dumb and wrong most places of higher learning dont teach that' is just being an elitist and not really in the spirit of this forum. but enough of a derailment.
This flag represents one thing: a country that existed purely to continue the practice of slavery. It's not just actions associated with the flag, it's not some ubiquitous symbol that's seen use in many cultures, it has a very specific context and a very specific meaning. There is only one thing it's associated with, and flying it today to honor what it represented is reprehensible.
lol did you realize at the time there was slavery still all over the world? I don't know what you're saying, to me, is if a country had slavery and then made their flag, that flag would now be made to represent slavery.
They made their flag for slavery. It's not like the stars and stripes coming into being while there was slavery, the confederate flag had one purpose: the furtherance of American slavery, a practice found nowhere else at the time except maybe some parts of the Caribbean, and condemned by most of the citizenry of the United States.
This flag represents one thing: a country that existed purely to continue the practice of slavery. It's not just actions associated with the flag, it's not some ubiquitous symbol that's seen use in many cultures, it has a very specific context and a very specific meaning. There is only one thing it's associated with, and flying it today to honor what it represented is reprehensible.
lol did you realize at the time there was slavery still all over the world? I don't know what you're saying, to me, is if a country had slavery and then made their flag, that flag would now be made to represent slavery.
If that country was founded upon the ability to own other people as property and maintained those policies for the whole of its duration, sure. Does that really seem unreasonable?
So you don't have any problem with flying a Nazi Germany flag or a swastika flag because the actions of the people using them aren't the same as their history and meaning of creation?
OMFG I never said anything about the swastika OR the Confederate flag, or slavery being just or morally acceptable. All I was stating is the flag ITSELF (meaning the fucking actual design and creation) was created (as in the very beginning) to represent something OTHER than slavery. But that's just my 2 cents, I wouldn't blame anyone because the moment I see a swastika or a Confederate flag, I see them as the 2 worst ways to see them, cause that's how we were brought up in society learning these symbols and flags.
So you don't have any problem with flying a Nazi Germany flag or a swastika flag because the actions of the people using them aren't the same as their history and meaning of creation?
OMFG I never said anything about the swastika OR the Confederate flag, or slavery being just or morally acceptable. All I was stating is the flag ITSELF (meaning the fucking actual design and creation) was created (as in the very beginning) to represent something OTHER than slavery.
So you don't have any problem with flying a Nazi Germany flag or a swastika flag because the actions of the people using them aren't the same as their history and meaning of creation?
OMFG I never said anything about the swastika OR the Confederate flag, or slavery being just or morally acceptable. All I was stating is the flag ITSELF (meaning the fucking actual design and creation) was created (as in the very beginning) to represent something OTHER than slavery.
What was it created to represent?
iTunesIsEvil on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
So you don't have any problem with flying a Nazi Germany flag or a swastika flag because the actions of the people using them aren't the same as their history and meaning of creation?
OMFG I never said anything about the swastika OR the Confederate flag, or slavery being just or morally acceptable. All I was stating is the flag ITSELF (meaning the fucking actual design and creation) was created (as in the very beginning) to represent something OTHER than slavery.
What was it created to represent?
The army that was created to defend slavery, which is what I earlier pointed out and then Rak agreed with me for some reason.
So you don't have any problem with flying a Nazi Germany flag or a swastika flag because the actions of the people using them aren't the same as their history and meaning of creation?
OMFG I never said anything about the swastika OR the Confederate flag, or slavery being just or morally acceptable. All I was stating is the flag ITSELF (meaning the fucking actual design and creation) was created (as in the very beginning) to represent something OTHER than slavery.
What was it created to represent?
The army that was created to defend slavery, which is what I earlier pointed out and then Rak agreed with me for some reason.
Can I use the transitive (sounds right) property on History?
flag = army
army = fights for slavery
flag = the fight for slavery
iTunesIsEvil on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So you don't have any problem with flying a Nazi Germany flag or a swastika flag because the actions of the people using them aren't the same as their history and meaning of creation?
OMFG I never said anything about the swastika OR the Confederate flag, or slavery being just or morally acceptable. All I was stating is the flag ITSELF (meaning the fucking actual design and creation) was created (as in the very beginning) to represent something OTHER than slavery. But that's just my 2 cents, I wouldn't blame anyone because the moment I see a swastika or a Confederate flag, I see them as the 2 worst ways to see them, cause that's how we were brought up in society learning these symbols and flags.
Right. It was created from the very beginning to represent the cause of continuing and extending Slavery in the United States.
I like all the slighted attacks against my schooling and whatnot thrown into your responses. Regardless if my knowledge of the subject is lacking.
"Hey, guys, two plus two makes five."
"Uh, no, two plus two equals four."
"Huh. I was taught that two plus two makes five. I guess to each his own."
"Where were you taught that? Because that's not the case."
"Hey, don't be attacking my schooling! My knowledge in the subject is lacking!"
There were atleast 4 posts containing well worded responses explaining why i'm wrong that didn't attempt to belittle me or make some snide remark. Shame you couldnt contain your vitriol.
Oh my god, he called you out. How rude.
There's a difference between Debate and Berate. I explained later the manner in which it was presented to me and I understood it, and there was some discourse over how it could be conveyed that way and why certain interpretations understand it as such. Making a comment along the lines of 'my god thats dumb and wrong most places of higher learning dont teach that' is just being an elitist and not really in the spirit of this forum. but enough of a derailment.
Look, first you tried to pass off an error in a statement of fact as an opinion, then you blamed your school for teaching you the facts incorrectly, then you yelled at us for blaming your school, and then you tried to actually defend the CSA's stance on human slavery as "a matter of context".
I like all the slighted attacks against my schooling and whatnot thrown into your responses. Regardless if my knowledge of the subject is lacking.
"Hey, guys, two plus two makes five."
"Uh, no, two plus two equals four."
"Huh. I was taught that two plus two makes five. I guess to each his own."
"Where were you taught that? Because that's not the case."
"Hey, don't be attacking my schooling! My knowledge in the subject is lacking!"
There were atleast 4 posts containing well worded responses explaining why i'm wrong that didn't attempt to belittle me or make some snide remark. Shame you couldnt contain your vitriol.
Oh my god, he called you out. How rude.
There's a difference between Debate and Berate. I explained later the manner in which it was presented to me and I understood it, and there was some discourse over how it could be conveyed that way and why certain interpretations understand it as such. Making a comment along the lines of 'my god thats dumb and wrong most places of higher learning dont teach that' is just being an elitist and not really in the spirit of this forum. but enough of a derailment.
Look, first you tried to pass off an error in a statement of fact as an opinion, then you blamed your school for teaching you the facts incorrectly, then you yelled at us for blaming your school, and then you tried to actually defend the CSA's stance on human slavery as "a matter of context".
He admitted he didn't take any college history, and that he was wrong. He even apologized for not reading the entire thread before posting his thoughts. Plus, people were not so polite as they were in your demonstration of the dialog. And how dare somebody suggest something that you disagree with in a debate! If you disagree that it's a "matter of context" then perhaps you should debate it instead of berate it. And yes, this is getting off topic.
I like all the slighted attacks against my schooling and whatnot thrown into your responses. Regardless if my knowledge of the subject is lacking.
"Hey, guys, two plus two makes five."
"Uh, no, two plus two equals four."
"Huh. I was taught that two plus two makes five. I guess to each his own."
"Where were you taught that? Because that's not the case."
"Hey, don't be attacking my schooling! My knowledge in the subject is lacking!"
There were atleast 4 posts containing well worded responses explaining why i'm wrong that didn't attempt to belittle me or make some snide remark. Shame you couldnt contain your vitriol.
Oh my god, he called you out. How rude.
There's a difference between Debate and Berate. I explained later the manner in which it was presented to me and I understood it, and there was some discourse over how it could be conveyed that way and why certain interpretations understand it as such. Making a comment along the lines of 'my god thats dumb and wrong most places of higher learning dont teach that' is just being an elitist and not really in the spirit of this forum. but enough of a derailment.
Look, first you tried to pass off an error in a statement of fact as an opinion, then you blamed your school for teaching you the facts incorrectly, then you yelled at us for blaming your school, and then you tried to actually defend the CSA's stance on human slavery as "a matter of context".
He admitted he didn't take any college history, and that he was wrong. He even apologized for not reading the entire thread before posting his thoughts. Plus, people were not so polite as they were in your demonstration of the dialog. And how dare somebody suggest something that you disagree with in a debate! If you disagree that it's a "matter of context" then perhaps you should debate it instead of berate it. And yes, this is getting off topic.
oh but hey at least you're talking about things that happened in the thread and not just repeating what the person before you said in a tragic attempt at mocking them
BEAST! on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
It's kind of ironic to me in this context that one of the things being 'southern' stands for is politeness.
edit:: Also, one of the best uses of the nazi flag was in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, which takes place in Savannah, and in that context it was used to protest a movie about the civil war.
The irony abounds!
SageinaRage on
0
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
A true Southern Gentlman should be equitable to all people.
Not really keeping up with the thread, didn't plan on popping in again, in reference to the whole Matter of Context thing.
I didn't see the original argument, but was the whole "matter of context" argument, the argument that at the time, slavery was just a common, natural and understood institution that was controversial, but was generally accepted as the natural way of things?
Not really keeping up with the thread, didn't plan on popping in again, in reference to the whole Matter of Context thing.
I didn't see the original argument, but was the whole "matter of context" argument, the argument that at the time, slavery was just a common, natural and understood institution that was controversial, but was generally accepted as the natural way of things?
Not really keeping up with the thread, didn't plan on popping in again, in reference to the whole Matter of Context thing.
I didn't see the original argument, but was the whole "matter of context" argument, the argument that at the time, slavery was just a common, natural and understood institution that was controversial, but was generally accepted as the natural way of things?
I don't think so.
Not even close. Support of slavery was entirely limited to the south, with even those states going democrat supporting the Northern Democrats, which I recall being seen as anti-slavery pragmatists.
Not really keeping up with the thread, didn't plan on popping in again, in reference to the whole Matter of Context thing.
I didn't see the original argument, but was the whole "matter of context" argument, the argument that at the time, slavery was just a common, natural and understood institution that was controversial, but was generally accepted as the natural way of things?
I don't think so.
That's cool
I just saw some mention of the context thing and wasn't sure if that was the argument being made.
"American slavery" as in slavery that was racially based, permanent, and hereditary. Most historical systems of slavery weren't either of the first two, and since most people didn't have children until their "term" was up the last wasn't usually a problem either. Also, slavery usually didn't lead to prejudice against a given group because in most systems anybody that committed certain crimes/went far enough into debt/whatever could end up as a slave. White people in the US knew it couldn't happen to them, so it was inevitable that whites would justify this by saying that blacks were naturally inferior. Which most white people in this country were doing up until a few decades ago.
American slavery was a fairly different animal from the things we see in most historical cultures.
"American slavery" as in slavery that was racially based, permanent, and hereditary. Most historical systems of slavery weren't either of the first two, and since most people didn't have children until their "term" was up the last wasn't usually a problem either. Also, slavery usually didn't lead to prejudice against a given group because in most systems anybody that committed certain crimes/went far enough into debt/whatever could end up as a slave. White people in the US knew it couldn't happen to them, so it was inevitable that whites would justify this by saying that blacks were naturally inferior. Which most white people in this country were doing up until a few decades ago.
American slavery was a fairly different animal from the things we see in most historical cultures.
Oh. I misunderstood. I thought slavery was bad in toto. I guess that is why every one is cool with it in its present forms around the world and spends their time online mocking hillbillies with a Dukes of Hazard fetish.
Definitely not. I'm not real familiar with serfs/the manor system but I was under the impression that it had been phased out pretty much everywhere besides Russia by the 19th century. Although the debt slavery that many of the European peasantry probably wasn't much better in terms of standard of living, they at least had the advantage of not being property. But, as I said, this isn't really my field so I may be wrong.
By the time of the civil war American was an anomaly in the world as far as slavery goes. I think it was the last anglican country to allow slavery, and certainly one the last in the world.
"American slavery" as in slavery that was racially based, permanent, and hereditary. Most historical systems of slavery weren't either of the first two, and since most people didn't have children until their "term" was up the last wasn't usually a problem either. Also, slavery usually didn't lead to prejudice against a given group because in most systems anybody that committed certain crimes/went far enough into debt/whatever could end up as a slave. White people in the US knew it couldn't happen to them, so it was inevitable that whites would justify this by saying that blacks were naturally inferior. Which most white people in this country were doing up until a few decades ago.
American slavery was a fairly different animal from the things we see in most historical cultures.
Oh. I misunderstood. I thought slavery was bad in toto. I guess that is why every one is cool with it in its present forms around the world and spends their time online mocking hillbillies with a Dukes of Hazard fetish.
See this is what one calls deceptive tactics. No one claimed that non-American slavery was not bad. You've repeatedly tried to misquote and misrepresent what people have said in this line so just cut the shit.
They made their flag for slavery. It's not like the stars and stripes coming into being while there was slavery, the confederate flag had one purpose: the furtherance of American slavery, a practice found nowhere else at the time except maybe some parts of the Caribbean, and condemned by most of the citizenry of the United States.
Your relative ignorance at to the state of slavery in the world - which was largely extinct as a system outside of serfdom in 1860 - is irrelevant. All you're doing is trying to distort the question at hand.
"American slavery" as in slavery that was racially based, permanent, and hereditary. Most historical systems of slavery weren't either of the first two, and since most people didn't have children until their "term" was up the last wasn't usually a problem either. Also, slavery usually didn't lead to prejudice against a given group because in most systems anybody that committed certain crimes/went far enough into debt/whatever could end up as a slave. White people in the US knew it couldn't happen to them, so it was inevitable that whites would justify this by saying that blacks were naturally inferior. Which most white people in this country were doing up until a few decades ago.
American slavery was a fairly different animal from the things we see in most historical cultures.
Oh. I misunderstood. I thought slavery was bad in toto. I guess that is why every one is cool with it in its present forms around the world and spends their time online mocking hillbillies with a Dukes of Hazard fetish.
See this is what one calls deceptive tactics. No one claimed that non-American slavery was not bad. You've repeatedly tried to misquote and misrepresent what people have said in this line so just cut the shit.
They made their flag for slavery. It's not like the stars and stripes coming into being while there was slavery, the confederate flag had one purpose: the furtherance of American slavery, a practice found nowhere else at the time except maybe some parts of the Caribbean, and condemned by most of the citizenry of the United States.
Your relative ignorance at to the state of slavery in the world - which was largely extinct as a system outside of serfdom in 1860 - is irrelevant. All you're doing is trying to distort the question at hand.
Three posts in fifty pages is repeatedly?
Only one of them, the one you quote here, is even a little deceptive. And then it is to point out the absurdity of the focus on slavery in the US, when it did take place in many other countries in the 1860s and continues to this day. Just because it was called by another name or the slave and master were the same color does not make it less wrong.
I really don't see how you can interpret someone saying that one form of slavery was peculiar to a certain area as them saying that any other form of slavery is just peachy.
"American slavery" as in slavery that was racially based, permanent, and hereditary. Most historical systems of slavery weren't either of the first two, and since most people didn't have children until their "term" was up the last wasn't usually a problem either. Also, slavery usually didn't lead to prejudice against a given group because in most systems anybody that committed certain crimes/went far enough into debt/whatever could end up as a slave. White people in the US knew it couldn't happen to them, so it was inevitable that whites would justify this by saying that blacks were naturally inferior. Which most white people in this country were doing up until a few decades ago.
American slavery was a fairly different animal from the things we see in most historical cultures.
Oh. I misunderstood. I thought slavery was bad in toto. I guess that is why every one is cool with it in its present forms around the world and spends their time online mocking hillbillies with a Dukes of Hazard fetish.
See this is what one calls deceptive tactics. No one claimed that non-American slavery was not bad. You've repeatedly tried to misquote and misrepresent what people have said in this line so just cut the shit.
They made their flag for slavery. It's not like the stars and stripes coming into being while there was slavery, the confederate flag had one purpose: the furtherance of American slavery, a practice found nowhere else at the time except maybe some parts of the Caribbean, and condemned by most of the citizenry of the United States.
Your relative ignorance at to the state of slavery in the world - which was largely extinct as a system outside of serfdom in 1860 - is irrelevant. All you're doing is trying to distort the question at hand.
Three posts in fifty pages is repeatedly?
Only one of them, the one you quote here, is even a little deceptive. And then it is to point out the absurdity of the focus on slavery in the US, when it did take place in many other countries in the 1860s and continues to this day. Just because it was called by another name or the slave and master were the same color does not make it less wrong.
...so? This thread isn't about ALL slavery. It's the slavery that concerns this topic.
Three posts in fifty pages is repeatedly?
Only one of them, the one you quote here, is even a little deceptive. And then it is to point out the absurdity of the focus on slavery in the US, when it did take place in many other countries in the 1860s and continues to this day. Just because it was called by another name or the slave and master were the same color does not make it less wrong.
First, clearly three posts is repeatedly. Second, its three posts in a row within a page or two. Third, you're trying to push the argument into condemnation of the Confederate flag is somehow indicative of non-condemnation of slavery elsewhere. Its weak and dumb.
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
Yeah by the time of the Civil War most of the Western world had already moved on to other less obvious forms of forced labor. Like orphaned children and the like.
Yeah by the time of the Civil War most of the Western world had already moved on to other less obvious forms of forced labor. Like orphaned children and the like.
Actually there was a fairly big movement in the western world Against child labour. There where also several labour movement demanding fair pay and acceptable working conditions. You guys never heard of them because they where often lead by the comunists.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Posts
Rage for the Machine?
There's a difference between Debate and Berate. I explained later the manner in which it was presented to me and I understood it, and there was some discourse over how it could be conveyed that way and why certain interpretations understand it as such. Making a comment along the lines of 'my god thats dumb and wrong most places of higher learning dont teach that' is just being an elitist and not really in the spirit of this forum. but enough of a derailment.
They made their flag for slavery. It's not like the stars and stripes coming into being while there was slavery, the confederate flag had one purpose: the furtherance of American slavery, a practice found nowhere else at the time except maybe some parts of the Caribbean, and condemned by most of the citizenry of the United States.
@Starcross: :^:
Falsely.
The army that was created to defend slavery, which is what I earlier pointed out and then Rak agreed with me for some reason.
flag = army
army = fights for slavery
flag = the fight for slavery
Look, first you tried to pass off an error in a statement of fact as an opinion, then you blamed your school for teaching you the facts incorrectly, then you yelled at us for blaming your school, and then you tried to actually defend the CSA's stance on human slavery as "a matter of context".
You're still on this?
He admitted he didn't take any college history, and that he was wrong. He even apologized for not reading the entire thread before posting his thoughts. Plus, people were not so polite as they were in your demonstration of the dialog. And how dare somebody suggest something that you disagree with in a debate! If you disagree that it's a "matter of context" then perhaps you should debate it instead of berate it. And yes, this is getting off topic.
just replace "=" with "represents" and fix the conjugation of "fights" to "fight" and you're golden.
edit:: Also, one of the best uses of the nazi flag was in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, which takes place in Savannah, and in that context it was used to protest a movie about the civil war.
The irony abounds!
For a given value of [people].
I didn't see the original argument, but was the whole "matter of context" argument, the argument that at the time, slavery was just a common, natural and understood institution that was controversial, but was generally accepted as the natural way of things?
I don't think so.
Not even close. Support of slavery was entirely limited to the south, with even those states going democrat supporting the Northern Democrats, which I recall being seen as anti-slavery pragmatists.
I just saw some mention of the context thing and wasn't sure if that was the argument being made.
You might want to research that a little.
American slavery, as distinguished from the more temporary kinds found elsewhere.
American slavery was only taking place in America!!?? Wow. That there is one hell of a statement.
Again. You might want to look a little more deeply into world slavery in that time period.
American slavery was a fairly different animal from the things we see in most historical cultures.
Oh. I misunderstood. I thought slavery was bad in toto. I guess that is why every one is cool with it in its present forms around the world and spends their time online mocking hillbillies with a Dukes of Hazard fetish.
See this is what one calls deceptive tactics. No one claimed that non-American slavery was not bad. You've repeatedly tried to misquote and misrepresent what people have said in this line so just cut the shit.
The quote was :
Your relative ignorance at to the state of slavery in the world - which was largely extinct as a system outside of serfdom in 1860 - is irrelevant. All you're doing is trying to distort the question at hand.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Three posts in fifty pages is repeatedly?
Only one of them, the one you quote here, is even a little deceptive. And then it is to point out the absurdity of the focus on slavery in the US, when it did take place in many other countries in the 1860s and continues to this day. Just because it was called by another name or the slave and master were the same color does not make it less wrong.
It's OK. I know words can be confusing sometimes.
I really don't see how you can interpret someone saying that one form of slavery was peculiar to a certain area as them saying that any other form of slavery is just peachy.
...so? This thread isn't about ALL slavery. It's the slavery that concerns this topic.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Actually there was a fairly big movement in the western world Against child labour. There where also several labour movement demanding fair pay and acceptable working conditions. You guys never heard of them because they where often lead by the comunists.