The Confederate Flag and NASCAR

[rah]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Personally, I don't give a damn what's thought. It's only an illustration of ignornance.
When Doc Strangelove and rah jumped on the band wagon, that's when I decided, enough is enough.

Hmm, I said that if people use the flag, unless they go to extra lengths to show that they're not using it in as a racist statement, (like the band) that they have to expect that some will see it that way due to how others have used it in the past. I wouldn't say that was jumping on the band wagon, just a little common sense.

I didn't say that all those that flew it were racists. I actually stated an example of some that weren't.

But if you fly one, expect SOME (not all) to think it is racists. Whether that's right or wrong, that's just the way it is.

And saying that's their problem is just being ignorant. If some people's main exposure to seeing the flag when it was indeed used as a racial statement (and even you can't deny that it's been used considerably for that) How could you expect them to not make a judgement based on their experiences. It's human nature. It may not be right, but it's reality.

SO if you're going to fly a flag that some might consider a racist statement, you're going to have to go the extra step to show that that is not your intent.

[SlowwHand]

I wasn't trying to slam you, rah. If anything, you should note that the high regard in which I hold you and the sawbones is what made me take time to post any rebuttal.

[rah]

AH, I never mind the critisism. (or I certainly wouldn't be a mod here) I just wanted to make sure I was taking crap for the right reasons.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Caligastia
If you want independence, you can gain it through peaceful means or violent means. First you try the peaceful route, and if that doesn't work you must fight for your freedom. What, I suppose the American revolutionaries should have left all British installations intact out of respect for their property?

At that time the US had not fired a shot at the Confederacy. The first shots were fired as the Confederates wanted Sumter. The cannons at Sumter were quiet until fired upon first.

A state seceeding doesn't mean it gets (or should get) all federal property.

After all, in Lincoln's inaugeral address he stated he wouldn't invade the South to compel them to come back into the fold, but would use force to protect federal property. After the attack on Sumter, he decided war was the only course.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Lincoln recognized the need to withdraw the federal presence from Fort Sumter because his Secretary of State had been promising exactly that.

I think you bought into a bit of the Southern propaganda . Lincoln promised to withdraw from Sumpter ONLY for Virginia's loyality.

Then Lincoln said he was going to send relief to the soldiers in the fort, but only food and supplies, no arms. That's when the Confederates decided to strike, before the relief got to the Fort.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


At that time the US had not fired a shot at the Confederacy. The first shots were fired as the Confederates wanted Sumter. The cannons at Sumter were quiet until fired upon first.

A state seceeding doesn't mean it gets (or should get) all federal property.

After all, in Lincoln's inaugeral address he stated he wouldn't invade the South to compel them to come back into the fold, but would use force to protect federal property. After the attack on Sumter, he decided war was the only course.

So the American revolutionaries should have left all British installations intact? After all, it was their property.

I think you bought into a bit of the Southern propaganda . Lincoln promised to withdraw from Sumpter ONLY for Virginia's loyality.

Then Lincoln said he was going to send relief to the soldiers in the fort, but only food and supplies, no arms. That's when the Confederates decided to strike, before the relief got to the Fort.

Propaganda? Sounds like you've been reading plenty. Warships, troops and ammunition don't count as 'relief'. The naval convoy was being sent to Charleston against the wishes of South Carolina and the Confederacy, and in violation of repeated promises that Fort Sumter would be evacuated. Surely any country on earth would view the sending of an unwanted armed naval convoy into one of its major ports as an act of aggression. The Confederates were well aware that Lincoln had already threatened to invade the Confederate states if they didn't give up their independence or pay the federal tariff. Hell, some congressional Republicans had already sworn to turn the Deep South states "into a wilderness."

If you consider all the relevant facts, the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was a justified preemptive defensive reaction to the impending arrival of an unwanted naval force.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So the American revolutionaries should have left all British installations intact? After all, it was their property.

I don't believe I've ever said that the American revolutionaries were not the aggressors in that conflict. And I don't think the British acted unreasonably at all in dealing with the Americans. The Americans just happened to win.

Warships, troops and ammunition don't count as 'relief'. The naval convoy was being sent to Charleston against the wishes of South Carolina and the Confederacy, and in violation of repeated promises that Fort Sumter would be evacuated.

What promises that Fort Sumter would be evacuated?! The only time Lincoln spoke to it was that he would evacuate Sumter in return for Virginia's guarentee that they stay in the union.

The convoy was sent after a message for the SC governor where Lincoln proclaimed they were restocking food and supplies and no arms or reinforcements unless the fort was attacked upon. There was no reason for SC to believe that there would be arms or reinforcements on the relief ships. If they found out there were, they could easily blast the place then (and just as easily... it was a half complete fort that would have been pummled). However, Beaureguard rather would have prefered starving the soldiers into surrender.

Furthermore by act of the South Carolina legislature, they ceeded that specific property to the federal government in 1836, so no claim could be had by the state:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm

Furthermore, do you consider that the country of Cuba can consider reinforcements to Guantanamo Bay to be an act of aggression by the United States? After all, Cuba claims that as a result of its revolution, it now owns that property and the US is illegally on it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Caligastia


If you want independence . . . . .

An independent slavocracy would have been just dandy to have, wouldn't it?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Theres a good one on hate crimes I posted somewhere a bit back showing the same trends. Blue states having much higher per capita level of hate crimes than red states.

Too many of you have reading comprehension problems.


I never claimed that all white Southerners are racist.

I never claimed that racism only exists in the South.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Perhaps not Mr Fun and I realize your fascination with the subject stems from your research into civil war era but despite that fact it is fashionable by others on this board to assume rampant racism in the south moreso than racism anywhere else. I'm not so sure I would agree with that assessment.

[Elok]

Originally posted by MrFun
An independent slavocracy would have been just dandy to have, wouldn't it?

Nah, the Slavs can't run anything right. Eastern Europe's been FUBAR since before I was born.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Elok
Nah, the Slavs can't run anything right. Eastern Europe's been FUBAR since before I was born.

True dat. Just ask LOTM about it

[Cort Haus]

Leave the Slavs alone!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Perhaps not Mr Fun and I realize your fascination with the subject stems from your research into civil war era but despite that fact it is fashionable by others on this board to assume rampant racism in the south moreso than racism anywhere else. I'm not so sure I would agree with that assessment.

I'm glad that you and I agree that it's simply unfair and extremely biased to ever claim that the North has been innocently free of racism.

My thesis is on the politics of race in the state of Illinois from 1852 to 1869. Before this, I already knew that racism has always been a national phenomena and never was a monopoly of the South. On the other hand, look at the reign of terror that blacks had to live under since the end of Reconstruction to the climax of the modern Civil Rights movement; thousands of blacks were publicly lynched in the "redeemed" Southern states during the nadir of race relations.

Of course, there are examples of such bloody racist violence in the North. New York City in 1863, and a suburb outside of Chicago in the 1960s when Martin Luther King Jr. tried to protest that suburb's segregation policy. It's no use to try to whitewash the violence of racism in EITHER region of United States.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mr. Fun:

A friend had an idea that I thought was really clever.

Do you recognise these two symbols?



If you do, I think you would also recognise that they are variations on the Iron Cross of Imperial Germany.

Now the top one is from a clothing company, where is the bottom one from? Do you know?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I have to ask this question of MR FUN, cause it was a thing i saw today. Is ur objection for blacks cause of the KKK for them being black and slavery, or cause of the fact that they use the same symbols for their hate of homosexuality?