»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Mississippi State Flag Issue
| The Alley |
|
Mississippi State Flag Issue |
|
|
Temptress
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-06-15
Posts 7136Mobile, AL 
|
Hmm..For now, I'll hold my thoughts on it just to see what everyone else thinks. For anyone who has been following it..what is your opinion? still d-i-s-c-o-n-n-e-c-t-e-d |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Jennifer - All Rights Reserved | |||
Acies
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-06-07
Posts 7665Twilight Zone |
What's the issue? "So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, |
||
|
Romy Senior Member
since 2000-05-28
Posts 1170Plantation, Florida |
I believe it should be gone! Just like those in the other southern states, gone, gone, gone! |
||
|
Dopey Dope
Moderator
Member Patricius
since 2000-08-30
Posts 11132San Juan, Puerto Rico |
See acire's Q |
||
|
Romy Senior Member
since 2000-05-28
Posts 1170Plantation, Florida |
Voting has begun in the state of Mississippi on the highly charged issue of whether to retain a Confederate cross on the state flag. Opponents of the Civil War emblem consider it a symbol of racism and slavery, but supporters see it as a mark of southern pride |
||
|
Jesse Jaymz Senior Member
since 2000-01-24
Posts 708Youngstown, ohio |
ok. now i didnt want to comment on this one. and this is proboly gonna make everyone hate me but i get to say what i beleave in. i am a southern civil war re-enactor. i have done so much research on this subject it is scary. now remind you i have lived in the north a good part of my life. but also lived in the south. people should look back at history. the civil war was not over slavery. or should i say not just over slavery. there were alot of other issues that played into this too. such as taxes on imports ect. also slavery happened in the union states during the civil war. and the us didnt ban it. if you read lincons proclimation it says NOTHING about freeing the slaves in the union. it only freed them everywhere else. and the reason that he issued it was to one try to keep england from helping the south and to try to insite a slave riot in the south to collapse it from the inside. it was basicaly propaganda. also the confederate flag has been so miss used over the years its not funny. hollywood uses it and everyone else uses it to portry it in a bad light. but what poeple dont realize is that one only about 5 to 10 percent of the people in the south at the time of the war owned slaves. also what gets over looked alot is how many FREE blacks fought under that banner. about 30,000 to 40,000 FREE blacks fought under that flag right next to whites. see the south didnt segregate there armies like the north did. you always hear about the massachusstes all black bragade as seen in the movie glory. you never hear of blacks southern fighters do you?? if i knew how to post links and pics on passions i would show you some of the infomation i have. the flag is seen as hatred because hollywood and the klan made it that way. also if you acually look the kkk flys the american flag and they use the cross and christanity alot. does this mean we should ban them too??? and the usa flag flew over a slave nation for 91 years. kuntucky, mussurri, maryland where union states during the war. and they were slave states. also in 1863 the state of Arkansas banned slavery. and also alot of the states had same such bills in there legislator before the war ended. the flag stands for heritige, hounor and fighting for what you beleave in. to qoute union general and former pres. grant. "If this war was about slavery i would have turned in my sowrd and fought for the other side." what lincon wanted to do was preserve the union. not end slavery. was slavery wrong? absolutly. but that was not what that flag stands for. and if we wanna ban that flag then we should ban the usa flag to cuz that flew over slave states as well. if anyone wants to talk with me further about this or would like more infomation just icq or e-mail me. but when i seen this i had to stand my ground. its time people acually looked back and read history them selves insted of beleaving what everyone tells them. i have said my piece and no proboly made everyine in here hate me but i dont care. i have stood my ground. just like my ansesters did. and no my ansesters did NOT own slaves. the north might have had less slaves, but they treated the immagents to this country like slaves. only differance is they paid them a penny more a week. sorry for all the spelling errors. just when i get like this i tend to speak my mind and let it flow. sorry if i offended anyone but i had to say it. feel free to contact me. Jesse Jaymz 22nd Virginia battalion CO. G All I feel is hurt and sorrow, praying it'll all be gone by tomorrow but as tomorrow rolls around, another tear hits the ground. |
||
|
Jesse Jaymz Senior Member
since 2000-01-24
Posts 708Youngstown, ohio |
oh yeah i forgot. the vote in mississippi was left up to the people. and black and whites voted to keep it. like they said there are more important things to spend tax dollars on then a flag. blacks and whites said that just forgot to add that  Jesse Jaymz All I feel is hurt and sorrow, praying it'll all be gone by tomorrow but as tomorrow rolls around, another tear hits the ground. |
||
|
Dopey Dope
Moderator
Member Patricius
since 2000-08-30
Posts 11132San Juan, Puerto Rico |
Well said jesse....wow.....most of that stuff I didn't even know.  |
||
|
Acies
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-06-07
Posts 7665Twilight Zone |
Well, I guess it's been decided already, so that's it "So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, |
||
|
Temptress
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-06-15
Posts 7136Mobile, AL |
ROMY, You say it should be gone, but why? What is your argument on the issue? Show us what you're thinking. GO JESSE!! LOL! I'm sure no one hates you, and I think its very interesting that you have studied that much on it. You're right too. That is a major point that isn't realized at all. The Civil War was not fought over slavery. My thoughts were that you cannot change years of mental attitude by changing a symbol (no matter what it is they say the symbol stands for)Its pointless and useless, because the stubborn racist people (black or white) are still going to have their complaints and are still going to be stubborn about it. I think what makes it a symbol of slavery are those who see it as such, including the ones who wave it in declaration of white vs blacks and the ones who see it and are only reminded of racism issues and slavery. I was surprised at the fact that the papers announced that that there wasn't enough support on the change, but pleased. I agree with what my boss said too. It was perhaps just a noisy minority. There are better things to spend tax money on. Here in Mississipp, I would say number one should be EDUCATION. People ask me about the racism issue here in Mississipp all the time. I don't comment too much if I can because it is pretty annoying that Mississipp (beautiful and rich in its own right) is seen by other states to be full of hate. I'd like to think when I tell people I'm from Mississippi that more comes up in their mind than racism, but the sad fact is that a lot of people in Mississippi are racist. Its pretty frustrating too when all a stranger can ask me upon finding out where I'm from if I'm racist. I'm not, but I really don't think they believe me. Another point.. People don't realize that there are more than two races of people in the world. There are more races than just black and white who are possibly even more harassed by others than any of us can ever claim to be. So, while the blacks and white complain and whine about each other, what about all the other people out there? Thats all I have for now. still d-i-s-c-o-n-n-e-c-t-e-d |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Well, unfortunately symbols have a lot of power. Also - the meaning of symbols aren't static. So, no matter what the flag represented back then its meaning has changed over time obviously. Jesse you've proven my points above with your information. It's only by STUDY that you know what you know - the majority wouldn't bother to study that...and when it comes to symbolism it's what the public believes in on a whole that creates its power. Unfortunately, the public believe it's a symbol of racism now - no matter its purported original intent. And, I believe, THAT is where the flag needs to be understood and a decision made around the popular belief. If it IS indeed, as it appears to be, widely viewed as a racist symbol, then for the greater good I think it should go...  KAll obscurity starts with a danger: |
||
|
Saxoness
since 1999-07-18
Posts 1102Texas |
That's just the thing...Severn, It isn't the popular belief. There are actually very few groups who still view it as a racist symbol. If you want to talk racist, look at the KKK white hood. There are actually VERY few times that the KKK uses the Confederate flag, Jesse is right, most often it's the American flag and the cross. "Glory remains unaware of my neglected dwelling where alone |
||
|
Temptress
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-06-15
Posts 7136Mobile, AL |
And after, for the greater good (or what I consider the greater stupidity and stubborness for people to be further blinded) what then? What else will be taken away from our history? History cannot be erased by erasing a symbol of it. I'm not replying with venom here, but with the strength of how I feel. Hope no one gets offended. still d-i-s-c-o-n-n-e-c-t-e-d |
||
|
Romy Senior Member
since 2000-05-28
Posts 1170Plantation, Florida |
I guess Severn has made a statement that expresses the way I feel about the flag issue. “Symbols have a lot of power.” “ no matter what the flag represented back then its meaning has changed over time obviously.” History tells us that the Confederate States of America was a republic composed of eleven Southern states, formed in February 1861, that seceded from the Union in order to preserve slavery, state rights and political liberty for whites. The rebel flag dates from 1863, during the civil war. Mississippi adopted its flag with the Confederate battle emblem, a blue cross with 13 white stars in the left-hand corner, in 1894 at a time when blacks were denied basic civil rights and subjected to constant intimidation and frequent lynchings. The state continued its policy of racial segregation well into the 1960s. Over time, the rebel flag has inspired mixed messages, representing southern pride for some, Southern hate for others. Yes, the KKK flys the rebel flag and the American flag, they BURN crosses, but they are only one hate group. What about the racist across the street that proudly hangs his rebel flag over his front porch, along with a sign that says “no blacks welcome” I’ve seen them. I live in Georgia and many of these “proud southerners” are my neighbors. Some seemed friendly enough when I first moved here, that is until they noticed that many of my friends are black, green, red or other colors. It’s not what the flag used to represent that’s the issue, it’s what it has come to represent over time. The continued flying of the rebel flag is a representation of a states unwillingness to see a need for change. Why is it not acceptable to modify the design? How can one feel “proud” knowing the very flag in their own state causes so much pain at the very sight of it to so many others? The population of the state of Mississippi is two-thirds white and one-third back, just like the vote split on the flag. As much as ninety percent of the votes cast were by white folks-- for the old design. In mainly black areas, support for the new flag was only lukewarm” Mississippi is the last state still flying the rebel flag. In an article published in a Jackson Mississippi newspaper after the outcome of the vote, one woman was quoted as saying, “ we're sick of giving in "This flag never hurt anyone. And no matter what we do, black people will still be mad at us." Another one was quoted as saying; "This is really embarrassing," "We now get to be the only state in the country waving the shameful flag of slavery." In my opinion, the flag may represent heritage, courage, honor, “Southern pride” to many people, but to many more, including those outside of the state of Mississippi, it represents a symbol of oppression and hate. It needs to be gone. Symbols carry a lot of power. Erasing this symbol may not change history, but it could be a small step in changing the future. |
||
|
Saxoness
since 1999-07-18
Posts 1102Texas |
Well, you certainly made some good points Romy, but how about another example? Take the Crucifix. Now it's true that this is the "symbol" used by Christian faiths to represent what their belief is based on. It encompases honor, love, tradition, and history. Surely a thing such as this couldn't offend anyone, right? But what about the shameful times in our history that the Crucifix symbol was used to mask evil intentions of men? Take the colonization of America. Settlers came over here, proclaiming that they were bringing God to the Native Americans. Yet we all know about some of the cruel and twisted acts commited upon them under the name of God. Under your theory, no one should be allowed to proudly display a Crucifix, due to the horrible things that men once used it for. But we know that the Crucifix stands for so much more than that, don't we? It's not the symbols we need to change, its attitudes. So the question is, will getting rid of anything that someone might view as highly offensive, such as the Confederate Flag, going to change attitudes? No, it will not. If what you say is true, then Mississipi is the only state with racism and descrimination, because of the piece of history they choose not to get rid of. This is obviously not true. Ultimately, the flag isn't the real problem. My point is, You cannot change the future by seeking to alter the past. In fact ignoring the past only causes it to repeat itself. I say let Mississipi display the flag, let them remember their history, good and bad. It's ok to have pride in something and to also remember the times that we as humans have evolved from. Hope this wasn't too rambling "Glory remains unaware of my neglected dwelling where alone |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
i think it's interesting that so many people argue that the secession of the southern states and the ensuing civil war was about something other than slavery -- the expansion of slavery as the nation expanded west. the expansion of slavery was at the very core of the issues that led to the outbreak of the war. the tariff issue was a dead letter after andrew jackson's time, and "states' rights" was merely another way of saying "states' rights to allow slavery." ALL the major political controversies leading up to the war -- the missouri compromise, the compromise of 1850, the dred scott case, the kansas-nebraska of 1854 -- all were about slavery, it's continued existence, it's spread into new territories, or the problem of fugitive slaves who escaped into free states. the southern states never had control of the house of representatives, where representation is based on population. the south was desperate to maintain balance in the senate (by maintaining an equal or superior number of slave states to free states), to ensure that congress could not pass anti-slavery legislation, or repeal the fugitive slave laws (which allowed southerners to forcibly retrieve runaway slaves in the northern free states). the missouri compromise of 1820, and the compromise of 1850, were incredibly divisive issues of the day, when people were sure the nation was on the brink of war, and each time, the issues -- admission of new states into the union, and how the nation's terrotiorial expansion would effect slavery as an institution in the south -- was resolved in such a way as to ensure that the free states would not outnumber the slave states (i.e., as a practical matter, to retain equality in the senate). in 1854, the kansas territory petitioned to join the union, and the issue flared up again; the territory was north of the boundry established by the missouri compromise (meaning the territory would be a free state forbidding slavery), but pro-slavery sympathizers would have none of that, and they were successful (with the help of stephen douglas) in getting a bill through congress that divided the territory into two, and allowed the people to decide whether to allow slavery under the principle of 'popular sovereignty'. it was assumed that kansas would be slave, nebraska free. but the k/n act infuriated many people in the north, and people on both sides were galvanized into action, rushing into kansas to "settle" there and vote in the special election. violence erupted, incredible, shocking, savage violence, and kansas became known as 'bleeding kansas'. (quite a few historians, in fact, say the civil war began in 1856, 5 years before the attack on fort sumter.) throughout the 1850s, when kansans voted not once, not twice, but three times on whether to be a slave or free state (pro-slavery forces winning each time, but each election invalidated because of widespread fraud and violence), when john brown was scouring the countryside on a holy crusade and raiding the federal arsenal in harper's ferry to procure weapons, the supreme court decided the incredibly controversial dred scott case, and the lincoln-douglas senatorial debates in illinois (debates which centered around the kansas/nebraska issue) captured national attention. the brutal violence in bleeding kansas was a point of no return; the issue of slavery and the territorial expansion of the nation remained, but it was obvious that political compromise was impossible. with the house of representatives long gone, and the senate, as the nation expanded west, soon to be lost to the free states, the only hope for the south to maintain slavery as an institution was a president such as douglas (or bell or breckinridge) who would presumably veto any anti-slavery legislation. the election of lincoln as president in 1860 was the last straw; many southerners saw him as opposed to the expansion of slavery, if not a downright abolitionist at heart. and the war came. not a war about tarrifs, or states' rights, or any other such nonsense, but about slavery. and the thing about the emancipation proclamation gets me, too. so many times i've heard people say "it didn't free a single slave, and it didn't do anything about slavery in the border states that remained in the union." yeah, yeah. the thing was, lincoln couldn't just issue a proclamation and abolish slavery, it had been legally recognized in the US for almost 100 years, and he was sure it would be held unconstitutional for the government to deprive owners of what had always been recognized as private property (like it or not), without paying 'just compensation' as required by the constitution, a fiscal and moral nightmare. so he came up with a pretty good solution: tie emancipation to 'military necessity' and use his powers as commander-in-chief to free slaves that presumably were aiding the southern war effort (meaning, of course, only those slaves in areas still in open rebellion on jan. 1, 1863). the proclamation was designed primarily to be an incentive to slaves to run from plantations growing the food to feed the southern armies, and to further bind the efforts of northern abolitionists to the war. as federal troops advanced, slaves in the areas covered by the proclamation would be freed, and after the war, the last vestiges could be dealt with (as they were, in the 13th amendment). the proclanation was certainly more than just "propaganda." (yes, he also saw it would be effective in helping to keep great britain out of the war, but that was never a very serious threat in the first place.) anyway, sorry to ramble on so long. my mom and dad were both great history buffs (you can probably tell, lol), so i've been fascinated with this stuff since i was a little girl. on the mississippi flag issue, i agree that there are far more important things out there to worry about, but i tend to agree with those who wanted the new design; i don't think it's too much to ask for a state flag that everyone in the state, black and white, can be proud of. heritage and history is important, yes, and i'm certainly not in favor of erasing anyone's heritage. jesse, i think it's cool that you're into civil war reenacting, and temptress, i think it's great that you're proud of mississippi (which is a pretty great state). keep all the battlefield and courthouse monuments, keep all those organizations like the sons of confederate veterans and all the civil war reenactors, all that stuff is great. but it's nonsense to deny that slavery was the single biggest cause of the civil war and was the very core of the confederate states of america, and (in my opinion, anyway) quite understandable that a lot of people -- whites and blacks, but especially blacks -- would be offended by having the confederate battle flag incorporated into the flag of their home state. ok, i'll shut up now, lol. jenni |
||
|
Rex Member
since 2000-06-29
Posts 482Houston, Texas |
A very interesting discussion. It would seem that in this day and age there is nothing that anyone can do that does not "offend" someone. Personally, I am sick and tired of the talk about slavery. This was a very sad and stupid period in the history of this country! The point being that it is history, so get over it! This constant bleating about the past is not going to change what happened one iota, nor free one slave. All we have succeeded in doing over the last couple of decades is to substitute a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" for a government "of the special interest groups, by the protesters, and for the corruptible". |
||
|
Temptress
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-06-15
Posts 7136Mobile, AL |
I still stand firmly that while symbols may have a lot of power, they still ultimately cannot change years and years of mental attitudes. If atheists clamored to change or get rid of the Christian flag, do you honestly think that Christians would change their opinions, faith, and attitudes because someone got rid of their symbol? Do you think that they would stop trying to practice their faith and witnessing to people outside of their religion? I don't think so. So, do you think that by changing or getting rid of the MS state flag that the racists will stop hating black people here or anywhere else? I say no way. Do you think that by changing or getting rid of it that the blacks will forget about slavery and change their attitude about the history of it? I still say no way. And again..I make the point..There are more than two races in this country (and probably others) who are or were ever opressed. There is more than two races that are closely scrutinized and watched. In closing for now I will say..on symbols..If a person hasn't enough mind to make decisions based on what they feel individually, without the influence of symbols or anything else, then that is their loss. still d-i-s-c-o-n-n-e-c-t-e-d |
||
Brad Majors
since 2001-04-03
Posts 2647Georgia |
Symbols are a tricky thing because they are given their meaning by us. There are alot of symbols that we use today that have changed their meaning several times. Just because the state flag is confederate why should they change it? It represents history just as the Ameican Flag does. I know it has different connotations to different people but its still just a flag. Yes it may be a sad reminder of what happened and some black people see it as a slap in the face, but with education it could serve as a landmark so we never forget the pain caused so it won't be repeated. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
More people in this country should stand their ground, just as you did, Jesse. We shouldn't have to tolerate misconceptions and then make laws based upon misconceptions. We shouldn't have to cowtow to the 'politically correct' all the time. Perhaps our cities and our county as a whole would be much healthier and more stable if more people stood their ground as thoroughly and as intelligently as you have done. Freedom lies in educating people about the truth, which is what you have just done, not in accepting lies and half-truths. Some people will find offense in anything...that is their perogative...that is just the way their minds work....in the same way that some people see the glass half full and some see it half empty. The way we think is a choice. I am responsible for my own choices, as we each are. And none of us has to bow down to the perceptions, whims or the choices of others. If we want to start banning things why don't we all just go back in time to Nazi Germany. I say let freedom ring. Too many lives were lost gaining and maintaining the freedoms that we cherish to let them be stolen away. And there always seems to be some group or political entity trying to whittle away at our freedoms, all in the name of placating someones over-sensitivities,usually based on ignorance of the facts, of course. Keep standing your ground. It's the right thing to do. [This message has been edited by Denise (edited 04-20-2001).] |
||
|
Jesse Jaymz Senior Member
since 2000-01-24
Posts 708Youngstown, ohio |
i am here to re comment. sorry i was gone for a few days. anyways, i would like to thank everyone that supported me. i was very worried that by posting what i beleaved in on this issue would surely get me hated. but insted it brought me respect. and i thank you. and thank you temptress for posting the thread. and i would also like to thank the poeple that dissagreed with me. why you ask?? cuz yall did it with respect and didnt try to run anyone down. when i go to a re-enactment alot of times our camps get protested. why? because of our battle flag. all they say is that we are rascist and we lost get over it. that really makes me mad. cuz they dont look at history. they just go by what they are taught. and if you really wanna say that it was just about slavery lets go back to the 1850s. zachery taylor was president. the south almost secceded then. not cuz of slavery, but cuz of states rights. and about lincons proclamation. no that didnt have to be approved by congress and all of that. it was a speech. thats all. i was never voted on in congress that i know of. if someone wants to prove me wrong please do cuz i would love to hear about that. as a great man once said those who try to forget there past are doomed to repeat it. like temptress said there are more then 2 races in this country. hell if you look at the latest figures for population, hispanics almost out number blacks in this country. and within in the next few years they will out number blacks as the top minority. and like was said earlyer in this post anything can offend anyone. a cross can offend an atheist. a red bandanna can offend poeple cuz they think its all gangs. hey i was in a gang from the age of 7 till i was 17. yes it has pride but it dont mean that everyone wearing a bandanna is in a gang. yall wanna hear about something rediculous?? listen to this. in richmond virginia they put up a wall to rememeber famous virginians. one of the people on this wall was suppose to be robert e. lee. they took him off of the wall cuz they said that he represented slaveery. one he graduated first in his class at west point. with houners. he was also approched by the union when the war first started to lead all the union armys. he turned it down saying my heart and family is in virginia. and i am fighting for my home state of virginia. but just cuz he was from that part of history he is automaticaly a rasist. to me that makes no sense at all. another example of politacal correctness gone to far. for a while poeple wanted to change the maryland state flag cuz it LOOKED like an x. and there for must be confederate. well sorry to say but the maryland flag is the crests of to great familys and has nothing to do with the south. i guess what i am trying to say is we SHOULD NOT ban something just because some people are to lazy to read up on history and see what it really was. it is said that the winners of wars write the history. well live up north and hear a civil war class. then hear that class in the south. depending on where you live is what side you will hear. dont ban the flag cuz of what the wrong poeple have done to it. like was said. the cross, white sheets and the american flag are all used by the kkk. yet the only thing that poeple see as rascits is the confederate flag. my flag will stay flying. and all my confederate flags will stay flying. (yes there are more then just the one you see all the time) well that is my take. and again i thank everyone that agreed with me. it means alot to know that i am not hated now. and i also would like to thank everyone again for doing this in a calm enverment and not just calling the poeple who do fly it a rascist. any body that would like to talk yall have my e-mail. thanks agian yall for letting me say my piece. Jesse Jaymz 22nd virginia battlion co. g All I feel is hurt and sorrow, praying it'll all be gone by tomorrow but as tomorrow rolls around, another tear hits the ground. |
||
|
Temptress
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-06-15
Posts 7136Mobile, AL |
still interesting points, Jesse. You amaze me sometimes, yanno. still d-i-s-c-o-n-n-e-c-t-e-d |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
hi jesse-- i just wanted to say i'm enjoying reading reading your comments, and i'm glad you didn't think i was trying to run you down (or the south in general). i never meant to suggest that seccession and the war were "just" or "only" about slavery. of course there were other issues; is there ever a time when there's only ONE issue going on in a country? all the same, i find it hard to believe that even you can deny that the slavery issue was the most crucial and divisive issue of the day, and that many of the south's "states rights" concerns were in fact concerns about slavery. what were all those people killing each other in kansas about if not whether kansas should be free or slave? and you can't deny that the CSA constitution was almost an exact replica of the US constitution, except for more explicit guarantees regarding slavery. i don't think the south should be condemned; it wasn't like jeff davis and other southern leaders hatched some evil plan in 1860 to create slavery. it was a huge part of american life for hundreds of years prior to the war, and yes, not just in the south, either. and i can totally see how abolition of slavery, or even a lengthy 'phasing out' of slavery, either planned or unplanned (through unseen market forces such as were occurring anyway at the time), would have caused tremendous social, economic and political upheaval of some kind, the kind of change that i don't think any society can go through peacefully. so, yes, southern defense of heritage and the way things had been for hundreds of years was understandable, but still... at bottom, it was a defense of slavery. please don't take this analogy the wrong way...i'm NOT comparing the confederacy to nazi germany ... but your argument is a little like saying 'the nazi swastika isn't so bad, hitler did a lot of great things for the german people, he put people to work, ended rampant inflation, got the nation out from under the burdens of the versailles treaty, reasserted german territorial rights, built those great highways, developed the volkswagen'...all of which is true, but isn't it overshadowed by the 'final solution'? can't you see how many people would be offended if germany decided to put a swastika up in the corner of its national flag as a reminder of 'german heritage'? i really don't mean to be so extreme here, please don't jump all over that example. what i'm trying to say is, although the confederacy may have stood for many things OTHER than slavery, the fact remains, slavery was still one of the core things it DID stand for, it's almost impossible to parcel that out of the legacy, and i think it's understandable that a great many people wouldn't appreciate a confederate symbol being a part of their state's flag, a flag that it meant to be meaningful and a source of pride to ALL the state's citizens. i don't think anyone displaying a confederate battle flag is racist, and i, personally, don't find it offensive in any way (but then again, i'm a white northerner). i think it's great that you fly it at your home, i really do. but why make black people fly it at THEIR homes as part of the state flag, or on courthouses and official buildings that are, in part, THEIRS, also? the confederacy is indeed part of their history, also, but can't you see how it would have a totally opposite effect on them? how would taking the battle flag off the mississippi state flag lessen or cheapen confederate heritage? i see you live in virginia, which has a quite conventional state flag displaying the state seal, and it doesn't seem to have done you any harm, lol. no-one's trying to ban ALL displays of all confederate symbols. (it is, after all, still a free country, you can fly any flag you want outside your house.) the issue in mississippi, as i see it, was simply whether it's appropriate to display the battle flag of a republic that was founded primarily -- not EXCLUSIVELY, but primarily -- to defend slavery, on one place: the state flag. about other people, like the KKK, misusing the battle flag, yeah, i agree, that's frustrating. idiots like that are annoying. (i don't agree, though, that the "only thing people see as racist is the confederate flag;" i think most everyone views a burning cross and the KKK white hood as pretty vile stuff.) anyway, this little 'debate' has been interesting...i guess this is why there have been maybe a couple million books written about the civil war, lol. history really does matter. thanks for listening! jenni p.s.: damn, lol, can't get out of here without one last comment on the emancipation proclamation, lol, if you can stand it, lol... yes, you're right, it was not approved by congress. but that was my point, originally: it was issued in lincoln's capacity as commander-in-chief as a military measure precisely because congress wouldn't have had the authority to enact emancipation without paying just compensation to slaveholders as required by the 5th amendment. emancipation for reasons other than military necessity had to wait for a constitutional amendment, which simply could not be done during the war. |
||
|
Jesse Jaymz Senior Member
since 2000-01-24
Posts 708Youngstown, ohio |
first off temptress i amaze you?? wow. thank you that is the first time someone told me that. *hugs*jenni: about the flag. you say that this woudlnt discrase the flag by taking it down. but it would in a way cuz they would be taking it down for the wrong reason. like i stated before free black and whites chose to fight and died under this flag. to take it down just cuz uneducated people think its totaly rascist then it would just further in peoples minds that it is. look how many states in the south have confederate rememberances on there flags that no one even mentions. florida and alabama have the saint andrews cross on a feild of white. that is what the confederate battle flag is is the saint andrews cross. arkansas has a star on its flag representing the confederacy that bill clinton himself approved. tennessee also has something simalar in there flag. the georgia flag STILL has a little confederate flag on its new design. and not alot of poeple say anything about that. i bet you if i flew the first national confederate flag in front of most poeple you would think i was flying an american flag. the very first national confederate flag adopted by the confederate congress in 1861 looks almost EXACT to the mississippi flag but insted of having the battle flag in it it had 7 stars in a circle representing the seven states that had secceded at the time. no one yells at that. what do they all yell at?? the one with the blue saint andrews cross on a field of red with the 13 stars. and about the confederate constitution i have a copy and have read it many times. yes in alot of ways it is like the american on. but if you really read it it gives alot more powers to the states and give the states the ability to do things they never had before. which was what the south wanted. you also brought up nazi germany??? this is the type of people that really kinda make me mad. the swastica was not always bad. it is a muslum or buddist, (please forgive me i can not remember which) symbol for good luck. and if you look on some of the temples you will see that symbol prominitly shown on them. do you think that what hitler did to that symbol changed there minds on to what it really means? no it didnt. now i am no way defending the germans or the swastica. i am just saying that just because some people have ruined dont make it automaticly bad. and also you said you where a northerner. right now i live in rochester ny. but when i was in virginia and my heart is still in virginia i lived in orange county. which is just west of fredericksburg and about 50 miles from washington dc where you live jenni. aint it funny that we live so close yet you call yourself a northerner and i call myself a southerner?? kinda strange huh?? you live about 5 miles north of virginia and your a northerner. but as soon as you cross that potomac into arlington county and fairfax county i guess that means your in the south. i get so picked on all the time up here in ny. for flying my flag, for having my accent, for eating good southern food. and frankly it gets to me. i guess my whole point is that before people go discrasing something they should look at history and read all of the facts and not always beleave what everyone wants you too. thanks for letting me vent. Jesse ps. oh yeah about your ps the proclimation was in no way first issued to be an addmendment in the future. it was issued to try to cause an uprising of slaves to take the south down from the inside and to keep england out of the war. now it was said earlyer that england was never much of a threat. well i will have you know that during that time england got damn close to 90 percent of all of its cotton from the amrican south. think about that. look at how many things are made of cotton. shrits, pants, underwear, blankets ect. now you tell me that england didnt have a big stake to lose in that war. just like dont you think that the amricans had alot to lose with that war in the gulf?? i can almost garuntee you that if all that oil wasnt there we would NOT have been there. nothing like we were. same with england. the south had what they needed and would have joined the south in the fight had it not been for that proclimation. england wanted to protect there investment in that cotton. and by issuing the procliamtion it kept them out of it cuz the us knew that they could not win if england joined cuz they were having a hard enough time trying to beat the south. ok thats enough of my ranting for one night All I feel is hurt and sorrow, praying it'll all be gone by tomorrow but as tomorrow rolls around, another tear hits the ground. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
