Interesting site about Confederacy.

I'm going to risk interjecting here...

It seems to me that those who are truly proud of the confederate flag and what it once represented are not in the least bit rascist nor intolerant. I blame the few who have perverted it in more recent times to benefit their own agendas of hate for casting a dark cloud over what was once a symbol of freedom and state's rights. The swastika was predominantly considered a religous symbol (which it still is to some) until it was adopted by Hitler to further his unholy cause, and now no one will every look at it the same light. You may not like the current President of the United States, but does that make you opposed to the Presidential Seal?

Flags, words, and symbols... are just things. What the confederate flag may represent for you is not the same things is represents for me. It's the evil people and ideologies that deserve being looked down upon, not the props which they attatch themselves to.

A very good site regarding the oft overlooked facts of slavery in the north..
http://www.slavenorth.com/index.html

Slavery was also legal in the UK less than 30 years before the US Civil War, and it was legal pretty-much all over the world when the US Constitution was written.
The big reason the Southern US had so many slaves is because it pretty-much supplied the world's cotton in those days; and the world bought that cotton eagerly.

It's not that the Southerners were less moral than other people in the world. Quite the contrary. They were victims of their own economic success which depended on a huge, cheap workforce. They became dependent on the evil that was Slavery.

The USA is the greatest country on Earth, and I also think that there are many things about the CSA that should be emulated by the US, Slavery not being one of them.

Anyway, as this is OT, I won't be posting any more in this thread.
It's been a good debate! Gotta love free-speech.

Regardless of the individual outlook on the symbology of such things as a Confederate Flag, the status quo remembers history with success directly proportionate to the degree of outrage surrounding a given event or part of an event. By and large, the idea of Slavery is generally more upsetting than the hard-up economic plight of the "southern" states of America, how they came to be backed into a corner by the pressures of increased demand and threatened manufacturaing capability, thus spurring their desperate, panicked outlashing of violence. The majority of the citizenry of the United States of America looks at a confederate flag and sees the support of slavery.

Whether we like it or not, the public likes its schadenfrued. Dispelling such beliefs and attempting to re-educate that the Confederacy was NOT about one of the bleakest of the wretched stains on our country's history in effect removes one of the nation's precious Scapegoats, and is thus an uphill battle that requires far more effort than any desirable gain is worth--or conversely, changing the outlook on the confederate flag to one that does NOT highlight the South's involvement in slavery costs more than every confederacy enthusiast in our history can collectively afford. There is simply too much momentum. The mistakes of the confederacy's forefathers will haunt every generation until the memory of the confederacy itself is lost.

Such is the miserable plight of Humanity's memory span.

Therefore, I present you with my final (satirical) point, and I hope you will find it thought-provoking and intriguing:
If you do not support slavery, you are not a confederate and you are waving the wrong flag.
If you do not support racism, you are not really a member of the KKK.
If you do not enjoy masturbation through the use of stuffed animals or fantasize about sexual bestiality, you are not really a furry. (this hits close to home, because it means I can't be a furry DESPITE my fuzzy ears and fluffy tail.)
If you are not tantalized by the thought of slaughtering thousands of dirt-poor peasants for their Oil, you are not really a republican.
If you do not have trouble making the simplest binary decisions and don't immediately back down when threatened in even the slightest, you are not really a democrat.
If you don't cut yourself, half-crossdress, make up fake emotional issues, wear thick rimmed glasses, make your hair do that 'flippy thing', or write cheap poetry, you are not really emo.
If you do not molest children and steal from charity donations, you can't possibly be a priest of any sort.
If you do not listen to rap music, wear 'bling', are not prone to crime, and don't regularly wield firearms by holding them sideways, you are not really black, even if your parents came straight from a line of pure africans.



Safety Net:
I am afraid I will have to tell you the punch line just to make sure you get the joke. This is how screwed up the world is right now. These are the definitions by which people classify eachother, and if you want to change it, the key is not within shooting the messenger.

Lastly, As much lovely sentiment is attached to a confederate flag on a personal level, their symbol has been tainted by history and the human condition. Confederate already has a definition and it's a vulgar one; rewriting history is not an option.

Meanwhile, I have to come up with a new name for Furries-who-aren't-really-furries-because-they're-not-perverts.

Much <3,
Stoney

And the swastika -is not- about racism either... but the Nazi's adopted it much like the racists here at home have done so with the confederate flag.

Both symbols inflame anger and outrage by a rather large population. As far as I am concerned... you won't see either symbol in my home or shop... and you won't see me in a home or shop with either symbol.

Your choice. I see people as irrational if they can't look past a majorities view of soemthing to see the intent behind it. Sheep are very popular after all.

edit: Im hebrew partly. I don't see the swastika as a symbol of hate..unless the intent is as a symbol of hate.

This has always been an "interesting" argument if one can get enough distance to stand back and actually look at some of the logic from the Union side of it.

"The South" could not secede as that was unConstitutional, not having specifically been mentioned in that document. Yet, a "confederacy of colonies" fired on its own legal governmental representatives, the British soldiers and by proxy, their sovereign ruler the King, in order to establish the right to rule themselves. In short, "Do as I say, not as I did".

The first shots were fired by the British soldiers enforcing British rule in the colonies.. much as policemen fire shots while apprehending criminals today. However, the colonists in rebellion "started" the revolution in Lexington and Concord. Likewise, the Confederacy "started" the Civil War by firing on Fort Sumter after the fort was manned in defiance of an agreement to not do so while negotiations between the Federal and a State government continued - and after offering the Federal troops in the Fort the opportunity to leave before firing commenced.

"'The South' fought to support the continuation of slavery" because a portion of its populace owned slaves - a condition which preexisted the establishment of the US as a separate and unique political entity in global politics. While other considerations MAY HAVE had some "small" impact, these should be ignored as the slavery issue trumps all others from a moral perspective. This logic MUST be valid - at least as valid as saying that the British reaction to the Boston Tea Party alone was the reason for the American Revolution - the Stamp Act had nothing to do with it, nor the reasons for the Stamp Act in the first place.

Today, descendants of Confederate soldiers and even "sympathizers" MUST BE bigots and apologists for not decrying the unethical and inhumane treatment of what was seen by many at the time (and for centuries prior) as chattel - though obviously that view has little place in today's social norms. Even descendants of non-slave owners MUST be descendants of people who "fought for slavery" and thus, must themselves be bigoted because the Confederacy was "all about" slavery and its perpetuation. I do have that correct, yes?

Civil disobediance is justified and to be proud of in all cases except in those which CAN be argued to be "pro-slavery" - despite any argument that the action being taken - seccession - is not being taken for that reason alone (though I do not deny that there is a lot of evidence that many slave owners and even non-slave owners WERE supportive of seccesion and the continuation of slavery by all means necessary or possible). But, seceeding is not civil disobedience - it is treason, not a legitimate attempt to reject/change the existing form of government.

I could go on, but there's little point. Both "sides" today have arguments which defy logic on some level.

I happen to have had relatives who fought on both sides, on both sides of the lines in WW1 and WW2. I don't think that I should be ashamed of any of them or of anything any of them did or might have done. I wasn't there. I don't know what their personal life experiences were, much less any social pressure involved in individual decisions they might have made at any particular time. I haven't been faced with the choice of owning slaves or not; whether to turn in or not a "traitor" to my government who is a family member or a friend or not; what to personally do if I had knowledge of an individual designated as an "enemy of the state" hiding in a neighbor's attic - with or without the neighbor's knowledge; whether I should leave my homeland for a promise of more opportunity for myself, my family, etc..... I don't have those experiences. So, I tend to side with descendants of Confederates in their arguments that it wasnt all about slavery, that many soldiers fought for reasons other than slavery and that Lincoln and many abollitionists "made" the war about slavery as a domestic propaganda argument --- once made and shots fired because of this propaganda, the argument had been "justified by spilled blood" and was further perpetuated during the Reconstruction as a function of "the winner writes the history books".

Obviously, YMMV

It also seems pretty popular to call people who don't agree "sheep". I personally don't care what race/religion/creed you are. To state that you are partly Hebrew to make a point simply validates the concept that it matters what your race/religion/creed is.

I am not going to change my mind about my personal boycott of shops that contain materials that are offensive to my concepts of equality. If that bothers you... I must ask myself... why? What does it matter to you if I decide not to spend my money in shops that contain potentially racist/bigoted materials?

Perhaps the confederate flag means something different where you live... but where I come from, it's a statement against people of color. I choose not to take the chance that my money is going to a racist, and if that makes me a sheep...

baaa baaa baaa

[edit]

It occurs to me that the issue here is that some of you think that your personal beliefs should be attached to certain symbols that are used by others... regardless of how wrong... to express hatred and bigotry, and the rest of us would rather not see a symbol used to portray hatred and bigotry regardless of of its origin.

History is history. The meaning that the confederate flag has to some of you has no bearing on what it's used for where I live. Here... it's racism on wheels. It's the same as spraypainting a swastika on a synogogue.

And I will not take the chance that my money might be going to a racist. So if I see either symbol in a shop... I won't shop there. In RL or in SL.

Thats funny! I was born in the southern USA. Where I gre up it was always honoring the ancestors who died in battle fighting for what they believed in- no matter whethe rit was right or wrong. You want to boycott honor and bravery? Feel free your loss. Baa. Choose not to look past a conception you already have and actually see the truths behind soemthing..

And if you read right..the reason I say I'm part hebrew is to emphasize me moving past veiwing what many see as only symbol of hate agaisnt -my- relatives and race (not to mention my german or romani blood) to seeing that tis -intent- not just the symbol

I think it interesting that you feel honor and bravery can be attached to a symbol, but hatred and bigotry cannot. I also find it interesting that you are so hell bent on slandering anyone who disagrees with you. You're not doing anything to prove the "honor" of the confederate flag there.

I think it's great that you can move past the negative symbolism associated with the confederate flag and the swastika. Many people still use these symbols as expressions of their hatred and bigotry, and such people aren't considerate enough to put up a sign explaining what they mean by displaying them.

So... I won't support anyone who displays either symbol. There is no way to tell what the intent is. But you can call me more names if it will make you feel better. It's oddly ironic. You are defending your freedom of expression by attacking mine. It's sort of like saying... "I hate you for thinking I don't love everyone". The statement discredits itself.

Slander? bordering at best.

Yes hatred can be attached to a flag.. but hey if the current generation of the -main- offended group wants to reclaim the 'n' word then I can certianly reclaim part of my family's heritage.

I have decided to pull out of this discussion. Anything beyond this point is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Sure, and Ill refuse to shop in shops that hang the current american flag because of the war in Iraq, asian detention centers and the norths history of racism,hatred,bigotry, and slavery.

Good luck

Its actually easy. No luck needed

I happen to live in Vermont.. we've now had 4 towns vote to support impeaching president shrubbery.

Well there's something we agree on

If two people look hard enough they can usually find soemthing they agree on

Isn't SL great?

I dont agree at all! It is easy to blame all of our problems on one person. It takes away any responsibility on our own part. We are all to blame for the current problems. I expect to be called a ewe for the nerve of disagrement from the vocal minority.

baa baa baa

Yes it is

For the record (and because I can't resist these kinds of arguments), the American Civil War was mostly about Northern attempts to reclaim the Southern economy and Southern loyalties from Great Britain. An intolerable situation had grown up in the South since the War of 1812, in which the primary market for Southern agricultural goods was the British textile and luxuries industries, and the primary exporter of manufactured goods to the South was British industry. Net result: A large part of the United States was in the political and economic orbit of a foreign country that the U.S. had difficult relations with at that time. Notherners felt - justifiably - that this violated national sovereignty and endangered national security.

Northern attempts to pry the South away from dependence on Great Britain through tariffs and new commercial codes inflamed Southern opinion-leaders and economic institutions. Sectionalism and states-rights during this time was largely about Southern rights to pursue "King Cotton" - the phrase used to describe the "special relationship" between the South and the U.K. Slavery was an easy-to-manipulate symbolic issue that ramped up emotional tension, but most northerners were far more concerned about what they saw as a threat to their livlihoods and to national integrity. South Carolina went rogue first because they had the most to lose, as the Port of Charleston was the primary embarkation for British and Southern trade.

An interesting symbol of all of this is Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which clearly states that the U.S. Government is freeing slaves only in those areas where it has no power to free slaves - i.e., the unoccupied Confederacy. The primary reason for the proclamation was not to free slaves, nor even to start a slave insurrection, but to turn the war into a crusade against slavery for the effect it would have on the British public. At that time, the British government was seriously considering an intervention in the war on the side of the Confederacy for the purposes of preserving the economic relationship. However, the British public was strongly antislavery, and the Lincoln administration issued the proclamation largely to mobilize British sentiment against intervention.

Fun stuff, exploding common perceptions.

For sure. Very little of what anyone has said till now (three pages of comments later) has had anything to do with SL.

To the OP:
I think the upshoot of discussion in other threads has been that if you display symbols or pictures that other people find offensive (whether they get turned off by confederate flags, hammer and sickle symbols, pictures of Philip Linden as Jesus...whatever) then you might lose their business.

I do not recall anyone having any noticeable success with an *organised* boycott though, and I think it is a little inflamatory to suggest otherwise. The strength of opinion expressed in this forum probably makes it clear that *some* people are unlikely to buy from stores displaying the confederate flag.

Suggesting a boycott of locations with the peace flag seems a little bit sad though - and I fail to see much connection between them. But no one if forcing you to shop there.

Moved to "The Sandbox" from "SL Politics"

This is perhaps the best thing I have ever read on these forums and I have read a lot of funny shit.

"First off, I'm partly Jewish, do nto start with comments about Hitler." - Jonas Pierterson

Not really an apt comparison. The means of the Colonies' "secession" from the British Empire was the Continental Congress passing a resolution to issue a declaration that the thirteen colonies were and ought to be free and independent states. Thomas Jefferson was more or less forced to author the document, which we now call the Declaration Of Independence.

When the British received word, they sent Willow Zander over to destroy every able-bodied man's mind with her incredible beauty... no, that's not right. Damned revisionist historians! They sent their armies to crush the rebellion.

We started by peacefully declaring our intent with eloquent words; the response was military force.

Not quite like what happened at Fort Sumter.

And as far as the colonies being allowed to break free of the mother country, in Jefferson's words, "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." In other words, "If we think we want to secede, you have a right to know why."

He continues by saying that the purpose of government is to care for the rights of the people of the nation, and "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." It's very clear just from that paragraph that they were saying, "King George, you have mistreated us, so we're leaving."

Jefferson goes on to list a long string of abuses perpetrated upon the Colonies by the British crown, including the arbitrary dissolution of representative houses because they opposed his invasions on the rights of the people; the obstruction of justice; the effective establishment of a police state in the Colonies by keeping standing armies there without the consent of the people of the colonies; blocking Colonial trade with other parts of the world; imposing taxes on the colonists without their consent; depriving colonists, in many cases, of trial by jury.

He then states that because of these offenses, the Congress is declaring that the Colonies are now independent from Britain.

A far cry from Fort Sumter, indeed.

P2