ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Banning the Confederate Flag is Un-American

Updated on June 27, 2015

It is really ironic that people and groups who are the loudest in touting “tolerance,” are actually the biggest intolerant bigots. The latest target of the media hate propaganda machine is the Confederate flag. Following the false media portrayal of the unfortunate shooting in Charleston as an act of violence caused by the Confederate flag, many big companies, as well as the National park Service and other government entities, have banned Confederate flags and related merchandise. This is un-American, in direct violation of American freedom of expression.

Freedom of Speech

One of the most important articles of the Bill of Rights, a feature which made the US exceptional among the nations of the world, is freedom of speech. America has always been a country where speech and expression are not censored, especially in matters of politics. This set the US apart from other countries where freedom of expression is politically controlled and censored. Banning flags or other symbols that “offend” some people (who are ignorant of the true meaning of those symbols) is a classic example of political correctness devolving into dictatorial censorship of anything that opposes the “party line.” It is no less tyrannical or un-American, just because the media controls the “party line” rather than the government itself.

I've seen the lame excuse that these are privately owned companies that are doing the banning, rather than the government, as if that somehow prevents the ban from being a violation of freedom of speech. This is an absurd excuse, especially in the cases of Amazon, Ebay, Etsy, and Zazzle, which offer selling platforms for private sellers. The companies themselves may hate the Confederate flag, but they should not be allowed to curb the rights of those who recognize it for what it really is, a symbol of a brave heritage of freedom, and dictate to the rest of us their political agenda. In addition, if they are allowed to ban the sale of Confederate flags, or any other media-created boogieman, then why can't Christian businesses refuse to cater to gay weddings, or provide other services that go against their principles? Favoring one ideology over another is directly against the First Amendment.

Fostering Hate

Banning the Confederate flag is a sure way of fostering hate, not only regarding the current issue of racism, but regarding any conflicting ideologies. Once the media and corporations begin “taking sides,” and censoring anything that opposes their ideologies, the flood gates are opened for a culture of divisiveness an hatred between the opposing sides. Respect cannot be one-sided, and if political correctness calls for tolerance of a particular viewpoint, that tolerance must be reciprocated towards those who have opposing views. Companies and government entities should not be able to dictate the views, public or private, that people are allowed to have, nor to dictate what people can or cannot buy or do. Taking sides only leads to more and more censorship and eventually government control, which is a slippery slope which can only lead to complete curbing of freedom for anything except a very narrow, bigoted viewpoint which brooks no contradiction. This is so blatantly un-American. Free enterprise and the American dream are stifled by this hate-filled atmosphere of constant clashes between opposing ideologies, instead of the free open marked where everyone is allowed to pursue their dreams and freely express themselves, without reprisals for “offending” someone.

This media-promoted bigotry also foster hate by engendering bitterness. Forcing someone to conform to something that they are ideologically opposed to, will surely result in that person hating what they are forced to “accept.” People who see their heritage and culture publicly attacked and banned, will begin to hate their oppressors and the politically correct ideologies that are forced on them. How can disrespect and hate generate anything but disrespect and hate in return? Far from uniting the races, this only leads to more animosity and division.

The Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate to anyone who is educated in history, and not so bigoted that they can't see past their own biased notions. The real haters are the media and the corporations that cave to media pressure. It is really unfortunate that people are so blinded by media propaganda as to hate anything and anyone that disagrees with their blind ideology.

The Truce is Over

The Civil War and the reconstruction aftermath fostered a lot of sectional animosity and discord that lingered for years. But eventually, the United States emerged as a strong country able to stand on her own among the great countries of the world. (although it is debatable if the “Union” was really preserved, because the fundamental basis of free sovereign states united under a Constitutionally limited central government was destroyed). This united front was due in large part to what history professor Dr. Clyde Wilson called “The Truce.” The following observation clearly sums up the situation that enabled America to become a strong united country standing up to the rest of the world, a beacon of hope to the downtrodden citizens of other countries longing for freedom.

“The terms of the Truce went something like this. Northerners agreed to stop demonizing Southerners and to recognize that we had been brave and sincere and honourable in the war, even though misguided in trying to break up the Union. Northerners agreed also that Reconstruction was a great wrong that would not have happened if Lincoln had lived. And they willingly accepted Confederate heroes like Lee and Jackson as AMERICAN heroes.

For our part, Southerners agreed, in exchange for a little respect, that we were glad that the Union had not been broken up and that we would be loyal Americans ever after, something which we have proved a thousandfold since.

And both agreed that the war had been a great tragedy with good and bad on both sides, a great suffering out of which, thankfully, had emerged a better and stronger United States.”

Clearly, this truce is now at an end. Over the last few decades, Confederate history and heritage has been increasingly maligned, and openly attacked and ridiculed, resulting in nothing but division and discord. The country today is anything but “United.” Millions of Southerners who are loyal patriotic Americans (which is a big characteristic of Southerners in particular) today are seeing their heritage and culture destroyed and disrespected on all sides. This hurts the whole country, not just the South. Once any part of history is suppressed, the door is opened for suppression of the rest of it. You also can't profess multi-culturalism, while destroying particular cultures that you don't like. Either you accept all of them, or none of them.

Democracy or Anarchy?

America is billed as a democracy (although it's really supposed to be a constitutional republic). However the current atmosphere of political correctness is leading to a complete breakdown of the constitutional rule of law. Small groups and factions in the media are dictating to the rest of the country, controlling what we can and can't say, do and buy. Far from being “inclusive” for everyone, the United States is becoming more and more hostile. Soon it will either disintegrate into anarchy, with a multitude of warring factions completely opposed to each other, or a tyrannical dictatorship will be needed to hold all the incompatible factions together. The only other option is secession, which will preserve the culture and heritage of the South that is being systematically suppressed and destroyed, but will finish the dissolution of the Union that is already being dissolved by the political correctness ideology.

Drawing the Line

It is the height of hypocrisy to demand that a Christian business be forced to cater to gay weddings against their beliefs, but allow a company like Ebay or Walmart to ban the sale of Confederate merchandise. If a homosexual has the “right” to shop anywhere for a wedding cake, a Southerner has even more right to buy a flag or other symbol that represents his ancestry and heritage. Who determines where the line is drawn? Any time someone makes that decision, and takes sides in a particular ideological battle, the noose is drawn a little tighter on American principles of liberty. If we are dictated to by the media and other politically correct ideologies, and forced to conform to the narrow mold of thought and action that is in direct opposition to the liberal claims of diversity and tolerance, the line will be drawn against all liberty, and America will no longer be the “land of the free.”

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • cathylynn99 profile image

      cathylynn99 24 months ago from northeastern US

      the bars and stars has not been banned. some government bodies decided it should not represent them and their buildings. some stores decided not to sell it. ignorant racist jerks can still fly it all they want.

    • Alphadogg16 profile image

      Kevin W 24 months ago from Texas

      Why would there be a need to fly a flag other than the Stars & Stripes? Is the South a separate entity/not part of the United States??

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 24 months ago

      Cathylynn, calling someone an ignorant racist jerk becuase they want to honor their ancestors and their heritage is what is ignorant. Also, I think you missed my point entirely. All the major companies and government entities banned it, so while it's not strictly illegal to display Confederate flag merchandise, it's almost impossible (or will be soon) to do so. Besides, if it is OK for companies to refuse to serve those who want Confederate merchandise, why is it not OK for companies to refuse to cater to a gay wedding? Either you have equality for everyone or not, and if not, it's no longer a free country.

      Alphadog, many people choose to fly a variety of flags for various reasons. in the case of the Confederate flag, it's usually to honor their ancestors, and keep their momory alive. There are many Civil War buffs, in particular on Zazzle, who were hurt by the ban. Beside that, the Confederate flag IS an American flag, it played a big part in American history and culture.

    • cathylynn99 profile image

      cathylynn99 24 months ago from northeastern US

      honoring the worst in their ancestors.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 24 months ago

      Cathy, insulting other people's ancestors is rude, even when it is done out of ignorance. It is also like the pot calling the kettle black, since Northerners at the time were "racist", and they also had slaves, (not to mention the slave trade was almost entirely run by northern ship yards). Have you ever read some of the things Lincoln said? Here's an example: “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” (from a speech in 1858).

    • cathylynn99 profile image

      cathylynn99 24 months ago from northeastern US

      i insulted no one's ancestors. everyone's ancestors have a worst side. i just think you're choosing to side with that.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 24 months ago

      No, I'm not siding with the worst side, but the best side, the side that believed in freedom enough to risk everything, unlike most Americans today, who think that just calling themselves "Americans" means they are free. But I'm not going to bother continuing the discussion, since I can see we will never agree.

    • profile image

      P51dman 23 months ago

      @ cathylynn99, permit me to clarify a couple of things, first, the flag is based from St. Andrews cross, and it not accurate to to it as "the stars and bars", second coupling the flag to slavery is very slanted as slavery was encouraged by the U.S. and it's flag long before the Confederacy. Most people believe through the lies of public education the war was over slavery, if you will take the time and research congressional sessions 1861, you will find the south states left congress over a voting issue. For those that like to paint the Union as the salvation of the U.S. I would suggest watching

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdEnywrij_o

    • cathylynn99 profile image

      cathylynn99 23 months ago from northeastern US

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      That's a ridiculous poll. The questions asked weren't even particularly about the Southern side of the war. It's no wonder that Southerners wouldn't know about Yankee generals.

    • Mr Archer profile image

      Mr Archer 23 months ago from Missouri

      This was a well done article describing the false belief that Americans have the freedom of speech, and the right to believe, sell, and display what they desire. I agree that if the sale of the Confederate flag is deemed to be illegal there will be an outcry such as this country hasn't seen. You are right when you say that a large portion of Southerners are extremely patriotic, and this just might push them over the edge.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      Thank you, Mr. Archer. I'm very disappointed in the sorry state this once great free country has come to.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      " Most people believe through the lies of public education the war was over slavery, if you will take the time and research congressional sessions 1861, you will find the south states left congress over a voting issue".

      Lies?? No, I think most people think that because the reasons for secession are stated very clearly in the Articles of Secession of the various states. for example:

      Mississippi:

      A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

      In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

      "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

      It doesn't mention voting issues at all. It does however state right up front in the beginning that their position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. I'm inclined to take Mississippi at its word. the other states take the same path.

      I find it amazingly ironic not to mention hypocritical that the title of this article is, "Banning the Confederate Flag is Un-American". The Confederate Flag IS Un-American. How can anybody complain about what is or isn't American when it comes to the Confederacy which was Anti-American to begin with? The Constitution of the CSA codified slavery into that document stating that all new states joining the Confederacy would be slave states. The flag was a symbol of the Confederacy on the battlefield. Therefore the flag was a symbol of a slave state.

      People can deny this all they want but logic doesn't lie. You can easily present this as a deductive syllogism.

      P1. The Constitution of the CSA embraces and codifies slavery

      P2. The Confederate flag symbolizes the CSA and it's constitution

      C: Therefore, the Confederate flag symbolizes slavery.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      "Besides, if it is OK for companies to refuse to serve those who want Confederate merchandise, why is it not OK for companies to refuse to cater to a gay wedding?"

      Because they are two different things. The flag symbolizes slavery, and a rebellion against the United States. Robert E. Lee said to put away the flag of Northern Virginia calling it a flag of treason. Companies doing business have no right to discriminate against anybody that wants to buy a cake. Once we do that, even on religious excuses what is to prevent a company from denying access to a hotel or a restaurant on the same grounds. That's legalizing discrimination. The flag is a symbol of the Confederacy and the Confederacy embraced slavery into it's constitution. So the flag is a symbol of slavery. In a nation still trying to recover after 150 years and is having a hard time doing it, that flag only serves a negative purpose. To glorify slavery which is exactly what it symbolizes.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      The battle flag is not the national symbol of the Confederacy. It was the flag of the soldiers, most of whom didn't even own slaves. No, Robert E. Lee didn't call it a flag of treason. He only said to put it away because it would bring more persecution and hardships on the Southern states, who were already ground under the despot's heel. I'm not going to get into a discussion about the causes of the Civil War, but people who know history, both black and white, agree that slavery was only a side show. The real causes were economic. In fact, most Southern slaveholders were planning on gradual emancipation, but they knew it would take a lot of time, without a total upheaval of good social order and total chaos. They were obviously right, because look at the horrors caused by reconstruction.

      "Companies doing business have no right to discriminate against anybody that wants to buy a cake. " Then why did Walmart discriminate against the person who ordered a Confederate flag cake? Discrimination is discrimination; if it's OK for companies to discriminate against Southerners, than it's OK for companies to discriminate against gay marriage. In fact, Christian companies have more of a right not to be forced to participate in something they believe is a sin, because the first Amendment protects religious liberty more than just political expediency.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "The battle flag is not the national symbol of the Confederacy. It was the flag of the soldiers, most of whom didn't even own slaves."

      I hear this argument so many times as if it makes some kind of difference. The Confederacy actually had 3 different flags. The one we all know as being flown at Southern State houses and carried by the KKK and depicted in every example of Confederate battles in paintings and films is unmistakeably the Confederate flag. Whether that's the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia or the entire Confederacy is a distinction without a difference. We all know what it is. And whether most of those fighting under that flag, which represented and symbolized the Confederacy owned slaves themselves isn't the point. They still fought under the guise of White Supremacy. They all knew that no matter how bad things might be in their lives...at least they were white. That's the very reason for the KKK adopting it. It shouts White Supremacy and it does that in the face of every black person in this country.

      "He only said to put it away because it would bring more persecution and hardships on the Southern states, who were already ground under the despot's heel."

      So suddenly they knew what it was like to be ground under the tyrants heel. That's what happens when you risk everything in a war. When you lose, you lose it all. So welcome to the world of the black slave. Doesn't feel so good does it? And STILL it was way better then they had treated slaves.

      "I'm not going to get into a discussion about the causes of the Civil War, but people who know history, both black and white, agree that slavery was only a side show"

      People who know history can read, and all they have to do is read the articles of secession by the States themselves. I posted Mississippi. All the others took the same view. ""Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world". Those are the words of Mississippi. They state that right up front and center. That's not a "side show" Connie. That's the Main Event. And that's REAL history. Not some revisionist crap.

      "The real causes were economic."

      Well...you're close. Their economy was built on the backs of slaves. ""Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world" - Mississippi.

      "In fact, most Southern slaveholders were planning on gradual emancipation, but they knew it would take a lot of time, without a total upheaval of good social order and total chaos. They were obviously right, because look at the horrors caused by reconstruction."

      By all means lets look at the horrors caused by Reconstruction, and ignore the real horror of racial terrorism that came with Jim Crow.

      Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them — or

      forced them to abandon slavery?

      To claim that slavery would have ended of its own accord by the mid-20th century is impossible to disprove but difficult to accept. In 1860, slavery was growing more entrenched in the South. Unpaid

      labor makes for big profits, and the Southern elite was growing ever richer. Freeing slaves was becoming more and more difficult for their owners, as was the position of free blacks in the United States, North

      as well as South. For the foreseeable future, slavery looked secure. Perhaps a civil war was required to end it.

      "Then why did Walmart discriminate against the person who ordered a Confederate flag cake?"

      Probably because Walmart sees that as glorifying racism and slavery. The flag represented the Confederacy. The Confederate Constitution codified slavery an organizing principle. Therefore the flag symbolizes the Constitution of the Confederacy which includes slavery. Walmart is not going to risk losing business by decorating cakes that appeal to racism , White Supremacy and Slavery. The two things aren't equivalent. Objecting to how a person thinks is different than objecting to how a person is.You can change the way you think. You can't change what you are. Maybe you'll find a local bakery that will make the cake for you.

      "if it's OK for companies to discriminate against Southerners, than it's OK for companies to discriminate against gay marriage."

      That's what all this is about isn't it? You want to set up a false equivalency. They aren't discriminating against Southerners. There are Black Southerners as well as the white southern racists looking to make point. Or do you think that only Whites qualify as Southerners?

      "In fact, Christian companies have more of a right not to be forced to participate in something they believe is a sin, because the first Amendment protects religious liberty more than just political expediency."

      There is no first Amendment right to discriminate in any business. If you're in business you have no right to deny people access to your business. And that includes religious exemptions. If you're a church , then of course you can.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      I can see that you already have preconceived notions about the war, and the South, and slavery, and nothing I could say would change that, no matter how many facts and statements I quote, by Lincoln, Grant, and other northern leaders. I'm not going to even bother wasting my time. BTW, Brazil didn't need a war to eventually emancipate their slaves, and they had a bigger plantation culture than the US did.

      As far as "If you're in business, you have no right to deny people access to your business," then why is it OK for sites like Zazzle and Etsy to ban all Confederate flag designs, by various individual designers? Why is OK to deny those designers access? The trouble is, tolerance only goes so far as political correctness. There is no tolerance for anything that bucks the "party line." Anything that goes against the false history (Written by the conquerors and promoted by the media) that is currently being promoted, is called racism, and hated and banned. By the way, the word racism was invented by the Communists. It shows how far the US has come towards being a full-fledged communist country. (And objecting to what a person thinks is also extremely Communist. We're all supposed to be equal, so who's to say that your thoughts are any more valid or acceptable than mine? No one has that right to determine what is acceptable and what isn't, in free thought and expression)

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 23 months ago from Southern Georgia

      Ditto, Adagio. Simply ditto.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      For the benefit of those who aren't already motivated by hatred and bigotry, Both Lincoln and Grant declared that the war was not fought over slavery. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the states that had seceded. Thus Delaware and Kentucky were the last two states to finally free their slaves.

      As far as Mississippi's secession declaration specifying slavery, that varied from state to state. In fact, in some states, the slaveholders were the ones who opposed secession. They had a lot to lose if the South lost the war. Even the ones who supported secession to keep slavery intact, often discussed abolishing it, but they realized that both blacks and whites would be worse off if it wasn't done gradually, so that the freed slaves could be assimilated into society without disruption. That didn't happen with the forced emancipation and destruction of the south, and we are still suffering the consequences of that.

      Most of the Confederates fought for their homes, liberty, and independence, all things that were promoted in the American Revolution, (which was really a secession movement), and all things that supposedly America is supposed to represent. This is a glorious, very American, heritage that should not be banned.

      If everything that offends someone, or has been used for wrong purposes, is banned, pretty soon everything will be banned, since everything offends somebody. How do you think American Indians view the US flag? Should that be banned, because so many atrocities were perpetrated against the Indians under that flag? I shouldn't even have to point out the hypocrisy of banning a flag that to some people, symbolizes racism and slavery, while only flying for a few years over an army that had some slaveholders, but not banning a flag that has certainly flown over many atrocities committed against American Indians, plus that flew over slave holding states for many years.

      A common Communist axiom is that the first step toward destroying a people is to destroy their history. There have been many calls to destroy whites, especially in the South (although there are many blacks who also fly the Confederate flag), and it's obvious that they are using cultural genocide as a step toward actual genocide, by suppressing history, and banning symbols of Southern culture and heritage.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 23 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      I feel like flying an adagio flag at the moment. I am so grateful for extremely intelligent, well-informed & dignified Americans who are capable of prolific writing and providing accurate DOCUMENTED information.

      They are able to educate, clarify and get through the garbage and ignorance so rampant everywhere.....but right now, it's HERE in front of us.

      Everyone has freedom of speech....all are entitled to their personal opinions & beliefs. Laws affect all of us. What possible benefit can come from arguing and back & forth ranting about WHAT THE GOVERNMENT AND/OR THE SUPREME COURT DOES?

      Write to and/or call our politicians. Scream at them all you want about flags, laws, rulings, and what businesses and individuals can or cannot do. The friggan Civil War is over. North and South represent the upper and lower areas of our UNITED STATES of America.

      For crying out loud! Give it a rest! Life is too damned precious and short to Jump up and down hysterically over a F-L-A-G! Have any REAL problems in life?? JeeeSUS Christ!

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      The ones who are hysterically jumping up and down over a flag are the ones who want it banned because it offends them. They are really just doing it to divide the country, and apparently they are succeeding very well at that. If it's only a flag, why do people hate it so much? The ones who hate it are the ones who are still reliving the Civil War. Until the last few decades, there was a "Truce, and both sides respected the other. America truly presented a united front to the rest of the world. Today, America is anything BUT United, because you can't have any unity by banning anything or anyone that disagrees with you, or forcing everyone into one mold of thought or action. Yes, laws do affect all of us, and that's why laws shouldn't favor one side over another.

      BTW, adagio isn't well-informed or educated if he really believes all that liberal media garbage he's been fed, and he repeats it as if it were really documented facts. All he did was cherry pick a few facts to suit his point of view, which is highly inaccurate. We are supposed to have freedom of speech, and banning anything I disagree with is no way to win an argument, so that's why I didn't censor opposing points of view, but it certainly doesn't mean he's correct. Many historians have refuted his biased viewpoint, and I don't have the time to repeat all that. Apparently, adagio and his followers are set in their ways anyway, so it would be pointless for me to waste my time explaining the real history.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 23 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      I appreciate your knowledge and respect your feelings. It is my personal belief that the MORE we make of something.....writing, talking, arguing, debating, etc...the more it grows into a huge problem and spreads. Before we know it....the anger and fighting is out of control.

      I freely admit to not being well-informed on this particular topic, although I do enjoy reading about History. I actually checked a lot of what Adagio wrote and found he is accurate. I'm sure you are too, with what you know. I can't nor do I want to take a crash course in the Civil War or the Confederate flag......and I repeat, it IS just a flag!

      What I object to is all the bickering that IN FACT, isn't going to change the way things have rolled out......action and letters and peaceful protestation.....maybe that'll work.

      I believe we have much much BIGGER fish to fry in this Country!...that's what I tried to convey. Thanks for replying.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      Thank you very much for your comments. I'm sorry if I came off as too harsh. The Civil War is one of those things were both sides can find any amount of documentation to support their view. We could argue about it forever. Which is why for a long time we had what one historian called "the Truce." The South agreed to forget that they lost, and work toward making one strong United States, in return for Confederates to be recognized as heroes, and offered due respect. (This was a virtual truce, of course; there weren't any papers signed). That worked well for many years. You can see examples in WWII pictures of the Confederate flag flying in various camps, in old westerns where often the heroes were former Confederates, etc., and even in old history books, where they emphasize that the Southerners fought for what they thought was right. I've been going to CW battlefield parks for many years, and I've noticed the recent changes in the explanations of the displays, etc. Before, they were pretty unbiased, so as not to offend either side. Now, they are more and more openly anti-Southern.

      You're correct that all the bickering won't change anything. But neither will banning the flag. If anything, that just divided people more, as that is now a rallying point for Southerners, most of whom consider the flag as a symbol of the south, white and black. But now they see their section under attack. This IS a huge problem, but not of our making, and I do think we should make a stand. As the saying goes, "Stand for something or fall for anything." I think there must be some hidden agenda behind it, so letters and protests to politicians probably won't work.

      The reason why I say it is a huge problem, is not only because it is straining race relations, and causing a lot of hard feelings on each side, which could easily erupt into violence, but also because once people start taking sides and determining what should be banned, because some people find it offensive, it can only lead to more and more control, and less and less freedom. Equality needs apply to everyone, even if their views are not "PC." In this case, the Confederate flag isn't "only a flag," but a symbol of a lot more important things that are at stake here. This country was always about individual freedom, which is especially taken to heart in the South, so really, this whole banning the flag situation reflects much deeper problems.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "BTW, Brazil didn't need a war to eventually emancipate their slaves, and they had a bigger plantation culture than the US did."

      So what? That's Brazil. We don't live in Brazil. What happened or took place in Brazil has nothing to do with what happened and took place here. Are you saying we should be more like Brazil?

      "I can see that you already have preconceived notions about the war, and the South, and slavery, and nothing I could say would change that, no matter how many facts and statements I quote,"

      Me? I post the Articles of Secession that tell you exactly what their position was, and you totally ignore that in favor of a narrative that you want to maintain. You prefer to deny that the Confederate Flag is what it is, and instead promote this, Heritage nonsense. That heritage is called White Supremacy. Conservatives ALWAYS react to any challenge to their institutions, traditions and values. And White Supremacy is a value that has always been a part of the Southern culture. To deny that is absurd. That flag is a symbol of Southern culture and that culture included slavery, segregation and racism.

      "As far as "If you're in business, you have no right to deny people access to your business," then why is it OK for sites like Zazzle and Etsy to ban all Confederate flag designs, by various individual designers?"

      Who the hell are Zazzle and Etsy?? I never heard of them. But if they are distributors of merchandise, they are private businesses that can't be forced to carry a line of racist memorabilia or trinkets. They probably don't carry Swastikas either. Being gay is what you are. It's how you are made. Being a racist is how you think. You weren't born that way. It's an ideology. Gay isn't an ideology. You can change how you think. You can't pretend you aren't gay.

      "The trouble is, tolerance only goes so far as political correctness."

      Actually tolerance only goes so far as tolerance. Even today, most advocates of tolerance would agree that we should not tolerate everything. We should not, for example, tolerate injustice, or murder, or attempts to restrict our freedom. And we need not, everything else being equal, tolerate the intolerant. Rationalism implies the recognition of the claim to tolerance for all who are not intolerant themselves. This does not imply that rationalism always works, or that we must tolerate the intolerant. On the contrary, there are limits to the attitude of reasonableness. You cannot have a rational discussion with a man who prefers shooting you to being convinced by you.... It is the same with tolerance. You must not, without qualification, accept the principle of tolerating all those who are intolerant; if you do, you will destroy not only yourself, but also the attitude of tolerance.

      This is because:

      Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

      As long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. (Dylann Roof) We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

      "There is no tolerance for anything that bucks the "party line." Anything that goes against the false history (Written by the conquerors and promoted by the media) that is currently being promoted, is called racism, and hated and banned. "

      Why is the history written by the victors necessarily false? Would you take the history as presented by the Pro-Nazi ideologues as true over the history of the winners of that conflict? And what makes you think that this history is "currently" being promoted? What's currently being promoted is a basterdized version of history promoted by racist historical revisionists. Racism is Hate. It's not banned. You can't ban how a person thinks. But it is exposed and most rational and reasonable people are capable of determining what side of that moral fence they want to be associated with.

      "By the way, the word racism was invented by the Communists. It shows how far the US has come towards being a full-fledged communist country."

      There's no logic to that argument. You present a fallacy as a legitimate argument. Here's the problem: It's an ad hominem. There are 4different kinds of ad hominems.

      1. Abusive: which I'm sure you're familiar with. We see it all the time. So and so is a butt head.etc.

      2. Circumstantial: Suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased, or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid.

      3. Guilt by Association: which is the one you're using now. "the word racism was invented by the Communists. It shows how far the US has come towards being a full-fledged communist country. "

      4. Tu quoque: " He did it too" . Two wrongs make a right.

      You chose #3. The word racism was invented by the Commies, so that shows that the US is moving toward being a Communist Country.

      Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively. That's what you're doing.

      -ism is a suffix in many English words, first usage , originally derived from Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismos), reaching English through Latin, via French. It is often used in philosophy to define specific ideologies, and, as such, at times it is used as a noun when referring to a broad range of ideologies in a general sense. Prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a (specified) attribute ;racism; sexism. A racist, a communist a sexist, is a person that practices an ideology or way of thinking.

      The first recorded usage of the suffix ism as a separate word in its own right was in 1680. By the nineteenth century it was being used by :Thomas Carlyle to signify a pre-packaged ideology. It was later used in this sense by such writers as :Julian Huxley and :George Bernard Shaw. Cubism=Cubist. Racism=Racist. Sexism= Sexist. Fascism= Fascist. I have no idea where you come up with such nonsense, but it's not very well thought through.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "For the benefit of those who aren't already motivated by hatred and bigotry, Both Lincoln and Grant declared that the war was not fought over slavery. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the states that had seceded. Thus Delaware and Kentucky were the last two states to finally free their slaves."

      Connie, do you think that's some kind of revelation? Lincoln fought to preserve the Union. The South seceded after Lincoln was elected and even before he took office. They saw him as an abolitionist who would try to abolish slavery, and of course, they were right about that. The Emancipation Proclamation was aimed at those states that seceded from the Union. Kentucky Delaware and Maryland didn't secede. They stayed in the Union, and the last thing Lincoln was going to do was force the hand of Maryland into secession as it would put Washington DC 100 miles inside Confederate territory. Washington would have fallen and by losing the Capital the Confederacy would have gained credibility with Europe. The Union would have faced a humiliating defeat and lost all cred. So the Border States that stayed with the Union were left alone and all of them rid themselves of slavery before the war ended. The Emancipation Proclamation was the final blow to slavery and shifted the emphasis onto the issue of slavery which had always been the issue for the South.

      "As far as Mississippi's secession declaration specifying slavery, that varied from state to state."

      No it didn't. Oh the wording might have varied but all the states listed slavery as the issue for them.

      Georgie put it this way right in the beginning: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." The Second Paragraph says this: "...anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution." And this: "While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact."

      South Carolina based it's argument for sovereignty on the Articles of Confederation: "For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Most Conservatives today who love to wave the Constitution and make their ridiculous claims are actually still thinking of the Articles of Confederation rather than the Constitution.

      South Caroline went on: "By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken." The Amendment that SC is referring to is the 10th, and conservatives ever since have used that to mean "states rights". But it doesn't say rights. It says POWERS. States don't have rights. People have rights. The constitution doesn't say "We the States". It says "We the People. People have rights. States have Powers.

      They go on with this: "The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals."

      SC is using the argument of slaves as property, and a property they refuse to give up. They have issues with the non-slave states. SC was the first state to Secede from the Union. It's where the first shot was fired.

      Texas: "The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

      "When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude."

      This is pure Texas:"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. I guess there's no mistaking Texas view of the African slave. The very thought of recognizing political equality between black and white races is seen as a violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. Well...Glory Gee to Beezus and yippie ki yay.

      I don't think it's really necessary to go through all the states. We know where they stand on slavery.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "Most of the Confederates fought for their homes, liberty, and independence, all things that were promoted in the American Revolution, (which was really a secession movement), and all things that supposedly America is supposed to represent. This is a glorious, very American, heritage that should not be banned."

      Yes, it was essentially. The South used the Declaration of Independence as a model or reasoning for their secession. In many ways, the Civil War is like a second American Revolution. It starts with something very similar to the Declaration of Independence. The secession letters of the Southern states resemble the Declaration in important ways.

      The Declaration, remember, had two things.

      It had a statement of values.All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights, like liberty. And then it had a political theory. People give power to the government and if it fails to protect their rights, they can take that power back.

      They can alter or abolish their form of government.

      The secession letters take the same form. Frequently, in fact, they rely on the Declaration. Now, their statement of values is different. They don't say “equality.” They say inequality. They don't say liberty. They say slavery. But they have a similar political theory. The states gave power to the federal government. Things didn't work out and we're taking it back.

      Now, does that violate the Constitution? The argument would be, no, the states didn't give power to the federal government, the people did. And states can't take back what was never theirs. The political visions that clashed in the Civil War are really about who is the highest authority in our system. Is it the states, as the Confederates argue? Or is it the people, as Lincoln claims? South Carolina placed a lot of emphasis on the Articles of Confederation, but we operate on the Constitution. "We the People" NOT We the States. So what the secessionists are doing is very much like the Declaration, very much like the founding. And if the South had won, people in that new nation, the Confederate States of America, would look on those succession letters as the Declaration of Independence for the second American Revolution.

      But the South didn't win. We got a second founding anyway, but it wasn't the one the secessionists wanted. It was, in many ways, the opposite.

      What's the equivalent of the Declaration for the Second Founding? It's the Gettysburg Address.

      Like the Declaration, this has a statement of values.

      Equality, Lincoln says. " Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. "

      That's the value to which the nation is dedicated. And what's his political theory? It's that the people are sovereign, not the states. And that the federal government represents the people.

      That's what he's talking about at the end. That's the government that is of the people, by the people, for the people, the federal government.

      This is, you should notice, almost the opposite of the theory of the revolution. The theory of the revolution is what I'd called the first lesson of American history, that the general government is a threat to liberty and the states are its protectors. That's the idea of the Founders' Constitution too. That's what the Second Amendment is about, states standing up against the tyrannical federal government. And that's the idea of the secessionists. That's what they think they're doing.

      Lincoln's theory is instead that the federal government can protect liberty. It can protect people from the states. The Founders' Constitution doesn't do this, but the Reconstruction Constitution will.

      That's the new birth of freedom that the Gettysburg Address promises, the Reconstruction Amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th.

      These amendments constitute a second founding. They give us a very different constitution than the one the founders imagined.

      The defeated Southern states accepted the 13th Amendment, but they didn't want the 14th. It passed Congress only because the Southern senators and representatives had been excluded. When Southern state legislatures refused to ratify it, Congress dissolved them. It put the South under military control and the new constitutional vision that Congress forces on the South is the reconstruction vision:

      That's the third lesson of American history. If States are oppressive to their citizens, then the Federal Government will intervene to protect them. States may oppress their citizens and the federal government will intervene to protect him. The federal government now is the good guys. So what does all this mean?

      We like to say that the Constitution is a success, that it served us well for over 200 years. But I suggest that actually the Founders' Constitution was in significant ways... a failure. It didn't do what it was supposed to do. It's supposed to form a more perfect Union, but 11 states secede. It's suppose to ensure domestic tranquility, but Americans kill Americans, three-quarters of a million of them. That's not success.

      We don't like to say this. We like to think of American history as a success story. We look back to the Declaration, and 1776, to the Founders, 1789. We imagine a line that connects us to those great figures of our history, whose wisdom still guides us, whose examples still inspire.

      But the Civil War is a pretty significant break in that line. The Civil War is a rejection of the signers' idea that people can always decide to change their government. It's a rejection of the Founders' idea that the states are the primary protectors of liberty. After the Civil War, it's going to be the federal government. It's going to be for awhile federal troops in the occupied South.

      So our Constitution now is different. The Constitution we live under, in theory and in practice, is the Reconstruction Constitution, and all of the major Supreme Court cases could never have arisen, they could never have been decided, under the Founders' Constitution. They are all 14th Amendment cases, federal rights against the states.

      So, our Constitution, the cases we talk about, the rights we cherish, is not the Founders' Constitution.

      And we haven't had it for over 200 years. We've had it for about 140 and some of the most important parts of it didn't really get enforced until about 60 years ago.

      We have basically three different constitutional visions, which correspond to the three big lessons of American history.

      1. There's the Constitution of the Declaration and the Revolution, the spirit of 1776. This is really the Articles of Confederation.

      2. There's the Constitution of Philadelphia in 1789. That's the Founders' Constitution.

      3. And there's the Constitution of Gettysburg in 1868, the Reconstruction Constitution.

      What differentiates these visions is basically how they think about the states and the federal government.

      1776 says the federal government is dangerous. The states are good. They'll protect people.

      1789 says the states are still good, but they need to be controlled.

      And 1868 says the states are dangerous. The federal government is good.

      All of these visions are available. They're all part of our history and that means that you need to choose which one you're going to identify with.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "The ones who are hysterically jumping up and down over a flag are the ones who want it banned because it offends them. They are really just doing it to divide the country, and apparently they are succeeding very well at that. If it's only a flag, why do people hate it so much?

      Because of what it represents. And yeah, it offends them. Rightly so. Try putting yourself in their shoes, just once. The American Flag flies over these State Capitals. The State Flags fly over them. Both of those represent the people of this county and the state. What does that confederate flag represent? Who does it appeal to? Certainly not all of the people of the state. That much should be obvious. Its a symbol for one segment of the population that wants it to serve as a constant reminder of White Supremacy to another. That's what it is...dating back to the slavery days, and Jim Crow and Segregation. That flag doesn't represent all the people of the state. And those people pay taxes to maintain the state property. So those states make people pay to have a symbol of hate fly in their faces. They pay to be constantly insulted. And they've had to look at it their whole lives as a constant reminder of their status in the state. For you to say, "They are really just doing it to divide the country", is the height of cynicism. If you had ANY empathy in you, you'd know that isn't true. That flag divides the country all by itself.

      "Until the last few decades, there was a "Truce, and both sides respected the other. America truly presented a united front to the rest of the world. "

      How can you actually believe that? A "Truce"? That flag doesn't show respect for the people that were abused under it. It's a symbol of that abuse. That's not respect. If you actually had any respect for those people, that flag never would have gone up in the first place.

      "BTW, adagio isn't well-informed or educated if he really believes all that liberal media garbage he's been fed, and he repeats it as if it were really documented facts."

      It's not "liberal" media garbage Connie, but with that statement I can see you have a conservative attitude toward all of this. Conservatism is

      always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order becoming self-conscious and reflective when other ways of life and thought appear on the scene, against which it is compelled to take up arms in an ideological struggle.

      Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where

      or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Do you think I'm wrong about this? You're demonstrating it for everyone to see. You denounce what I wrote as "Liberal media garbage", because it challenges your conservative narrative. I don't need the media to tell me what to think Connie. I've been able to do that for myself for a very long time. I don't use "talking points". I prefer logic and reason with historical accuracy.

      The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo

      in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. I watched it happen in real time. I was in high school at that time. The very raising of the Confederate flag over South Carolina. June 21. "1961 … it was a middle finger directed at the federal government. It was flown there as a symbol of massive resistance to racial desegregation. Period."

      In 1948, the meaning of the flag began to change. That year, Dixiecrats flew the flag at their convention in Birmingham, Ala., as "a symbol of Southern protest and resistance to the federal government."

      In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Board that segregation in education was unconstitutional. Georgia changed its state flag to embody the Confederate battle flag two years later.

      These are obvious reactions to the civil rights movement. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. Conservatism is based on maintaining traditional institutions and values.

      These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be

      institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including

      those that proposed it and passed it.

      Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative.

      Hence your referring to what I wrote as "liberal garbage". My "liberal garbage" as you put it, challenges the narrative that you've used for a long time. It's human nature to recoil and react viscerally to anything or anybody that might turn our time-honored values and institutions inside out, and upside down and tell us...they no longer have any meaning, and in fact are immoral. So hatred for those emancipated by law and those liberals that supported that emancipation come to the surface.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 23 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Let me be first in line to fess up.. I know I will never again make the claim, "It's JUST a flag!" After all I've read by adagio, I have put myself in the shoes of those who are "offended" by that flag's representation. The true meaning simply cannot be denied.

      It is long overdue this flag went into a museum.....maybe in a back room. (This is what I get for not knowing the authentic history of events of my own country!)

      Connie, I do hope you can be less staunch and defensive...and instead can look seriously & fairly at the facts. It is so clearly evident.

      This is an education for me that I not only appreciate, but will never forget.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      Adagio, you are correct that the government today is very different form what the founders intended. In fact, you made it very clear that Lincoln didn't "save the Union," in fact , he destroyed it, and replaced the limited Constitutional republic we had with something exactly opposite. The Constitution is practically dead, but so far it still officially remains the law of the land.

      No, the federal government is not the "good guys," as is demonstrated almost daily by increased control and despotism. That doesn't mean we can't have another American Revolution, or secession movement, against the tyranny which is much more oppressive than that of King George.

      As far as your second post, you will always consider the flag racist, as your liberal handlers told you to, so nothing I say can change that. The media calls all whites racist by their very nature, but what do you call the blacks that fly that flag, and proudly defend it, because it is a symbol of their homeland, the South? And a large portion of the population in this country doesn't consider the flag racist or hateful, or offensive, so again, what makes some people's point of view more valid than others'? Stop living in the past, whether it's the 1860's or the 1960's. And stop trying to impose your views on others, by banning everything you don't like, and suppressing history. The Confederate flag was used to fight against federal oppression in 1861, and symbolically in the 1960's. While race was one of the sticking points in both conflicts, that isn't what the flag itself signifies, unless you want to validate the claims of a few crackpots.

      As far as liberals "emancipating" blacks and making them equal, they have given them a false sense of equality by lowering all the standards in the schools, putting unqualified people in employment positions just to fill quotas, and pumping millions of dollars into welfare programs, which far from liberating them, have caused them to be completely dependent on government programs, and unable to care for themselves. That's not liberty or equality, but a sordid form of slavery. Instead, why not encourage them to work to better themselves, at the same standards whites are held to? That would be true equality and color-blindness, and would go far toward defeating animosity between the races.

      Yes, there was a truce, between north and south, which made this country one United nation. Both northerners and Southerners respected each other, and worked to make our country great. Dragging race into it, and fueling racial animosity, only divides the country. Both blacks and whites were slaves and slaveholders, so there is no reason to even bring up race.

      @fpherj48, perhaps it is clearly evident to you, but we are looking at it from totally different points of view, so it is not at all evident to me. The "true meaning" to you isn't what the "true meaning" is to me. You can ask a hundred different people, and you'll probably get 100 different meanings. Who's to say who's "true meaning is correct? why should it be subject to media propaganda and control?

      Adagio dredges up all the old excuses for considering the flag objectionable, but never addresses the fact that most inner city blacks are more enslaved today than ever, only it's to the government instead of individuals. He also ignores the fact that many blacks don't like integration; there have been a lot of calls recently for black-only schools and clubs, and governments. This is not a white vs black issue. Both blacks and whites can be found to hate or love the Confederate flag. This is a government vs the people issue. Do we want a free country, or do we want a totalitarian central government? Banning things that some people find objectionable, no matter how valid their objections may or may not be, isn't the way to go. That just limits freedom for everyone. The US flag is objectionable to many people, should it be the next to go?

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      You know, this discussion illustrates why America can never be united. We have completely opposing views on what kind of government we should have. I believe in personal liberty, and a small central government, with sovereign states, to compensate for the diversity of people's views, so that we can move to whichever state suits us best (for me, that would mean good gun laws). People like Adagio want a strong federal government to take care of them, and quell diversity by forcing everyone to comply with their ideologies, even if that means trampling on an individual's inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the rights embodied in the Bill of Rights.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 23 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      This has been one heck of a solid, profound debate. I feel like the lone fan in the bleachers watching a tennis match. One thing is for sure. You can both hold your own quite well, express yourselves prolifically and I'm feeling the passion from you both.

      Yes Connie, I know full well that 10 different individuals can and often do have 10 varying opinions and perspectives....and are free to do so. This is one of the beauties of being an American.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @fpherj48: "This is an education for me that I not only appreciate, but will never forget."

      That's quite a compliment FP. Thanks. I think that the best that anybody can hope for on this forums, is to change a mind or at least get somebody to re-think a position. Hardly anybody ever "wins" these arguments on forums like this because nobody ever admits they're wrong. But sometimes...if you can make a clear and logical case...you just might reach others that are reading what is being said and they'll re-think things and draw their own conclusions about what makes sense, and sounds reasonable and rational. And what doesn't.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "In fact, you made it very clear that Lincoln didn't "save the Union," in fact , he destroyed it, and replaced the limited Constitutional republic we had with something exactly opposite. The Constitution is practically dead, but so far it still officially remains the law of the land."

      Connie, that's nonsense. Lincoln DID preserve the Union. We are living proof of that. The result of what Lincoln accomplished is that slavery is gone, and that the Federal Government will protect the people from the tyranny of the states. When the 14th Amendment was passed, that changed everything. All people born here now had the protection of the Federal Constitution against the States that would deny them that, and we have seen throughout our history that there are states that would still attempt to deny some people that protection. Jim Crow was the most obvious example. So are you actually going to defend Jim Crow for the sake of your ideology?

      "No, the federal government is not the "good guys," as is demonstrated almost daily by increased control and despotism."

      Really? The States would deny people the very rights that you enjoy purely by virtue of the genetic lottery. Would you prefer that the states still had the power to deny blacks their rights as citizens of this country?

      "That doesn't mean we can't have another American Revolution, or secession movement, against the tyranny which is much more oppressive than that of King George."

      I'm afraid that's exactly what it means.

      "As far as your second post, you will always consider the flag racist, as your liberal handlers told you to, so nothing I say can change that."

      I don't have liberal handlers Connie. I can handle myself as I think I've shown throughout this debate. I've illustrated to you that your argument fails on every count, including logic.

      P1. The CSA embedded slavery into it's constitution

      P2. The flag symbolizes the Confederacy and its constitution on the battlefield

      ____________________________________________

      C: Therefore the flag symbolizes slavery on the battlefield

      It's called a deductive syllogism. It means that if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true.

      P1. All humans are mortal

      P2. Connie is a human

      ___________________

      C: Therefore, Connie is mortal

      I don't require "liberal handlers" to understand logic. But then that's the usual argument coming from a conservative. It must be my "handlers". I couldn't possibly be thinking for myself. After all...that's not something you've ever experienced as a conservative. So it must be true for everyone.

      "The media calls all whites racist by their very nature, but what do you call the blacks that fly that flag,"

      No they don't. That's your conservative "handlers" telling you that. There is no media that calls whites racist by their very nature. NONE. So you're making that up. As for blacks flying that flag, I'd call them anecdotal examples and as such fallacious thinking . We tend to judge the probabilities of types of event by using what psychologists call the "availability", or "ease of representation" The easier it is to remember, or to imagine, a type of event, the more likely it is in your mind, that an event of that type will occur. So in your case, you'll say, " I saw a black guy waving the confederate flag. See, they don't have a problem at all". And you use that as representative of the entire race of people when it's merely an anecdotal reference.

      "And a large portion of the population in this country doesn't consider the flag racist or hateful, or offensive, so again, what makes some people's point of view more valid than others'?"

      History. Logic. Reason. Rationality. Do you know what Rationality actually is? It's consistency in how we think. That's why embracing contradiction is a sign of irrationality. The law of non-contradiction means something to most people. You can't be here and not here at the same time. You can't hold two opposing positions simultaneously.

      I've presented for you a logical syllogism that demonstrates without question that the flag was a symbol of slavery. In a deductive syllogism if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true. That's how logic works. Denying that is irrational. Of course conservatives hate logic because it's unsympathetic to dogmatism and dogmatically held ideologies always fail under logic. So logic is a "liberal" trick and should never be accepted. So I guess logic now has a liberal bias.

      "Stop living in the past, whether it's the 1860's or the 1960's. And stop trying to impose your views on others, by banning everything you don't like, and suppressing history."

      That's funny coming from a conservative that wants to return to the old days of slavery and Jim Crow. I live in the 21st Century Connie. Not in the days of segregation. And nobody is suppressing history. History is to be viewed in a museum. Not on a flagpole as a direct reminder to a certain group of people that they live under the concept of White Supremacy. And that is undeniably what that flag is all about.

      "The Confederate flag was used to fight against federal oppression in 1861, and symbolically in the 1960's. "

      Ahhh denial. I see. That's the game here. The oppression that you're talking about Connie was known as slavery. It was the Federal government that freed the slaves. It sure as hell wasn't the states. That's oppression. And that flag was used in the 1960's as a statement of protest against the rising Civil Rights Movement. Do you want to deny that??

      "While race was one of the sticking points in both conflicts, that isn't what the flag itself signifies,"

      Connie. That flag on the battlefield represents the Confederacy. It served as a rallying symbol for Confederate troops. That's what flags do. That's their purpose. They aren't tablecloths. The reasons for secession are stated clearly by the seceding states. SLAVERY was the issue. Slavery was codified. What does that mean?

      Codification:

      The collection and systematic arrangement, usually by subject, of the laws of a state or country, or the statutory provisions, rules, and regulations that govern a specific area or subject of law or practice.

      Slavery is IN the Constitution of the CSA. The flag represents the CSA. Therefore the flag represents a slave country. That's irrefutable. There were other things as well, many of which were borrowed from our US constitution verbatim. But there is NO denying that a flag that represents the Confederacy represents slavery.

      Now...I'm surprised that you haven't mentioned that slavery was codified in our own US Constitution as well. It was.

      White Supremacy and racism is foundational to America. It’s embedded in our constitution.

      Article I Sec. 2.(basing a state’s representation in the House on its Free population and 3/5 of all other persons)

      Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the

      whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

      Article I Sec. 9. (Barring congress from abolishing the slave trade before 1808)

      The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight,

      but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

      Article IV Sec. 2. (providing for the return of runaway slaves)

      A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be

      delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie:

      Simply by putting these issues into our constitution we recognized the institution of slavery. The Southern states would NEVER have ratified the constitution without it. So the Framers kicked the can down the road to have the issue be settled at a later date.

      When Lincoln was elected the abolitionist movement was in full sway and Lincoln was seen as an abolitionist which is why they seceded as soon as he was elected. They left before he was even inaugurated. The issue of Slavery was front and center with the seceding states. Saying they didn't leave because of slavery is simply a false argument. They didn't even wait for Lincoln to take office.

      "That's not liberty or equality, but a sordid form of slavery"

      And that of course is bullshit. You're attempting to create some symbolic slavery with the real thing. Nobody is in chains today. Nobody is under the whip of the over seer. Nobody can have their family broken apart or sold off. Nobody works for free from sunrise to sundown and then sent to a hovel until the next day. Nobody is kept from leaving for fear of being hunted down and beaten, whipped, or hung for doing it. Nobody is sold at auction like livestock. Those ridiculous metaphorical comparisons to what REAL slavery was like only serve to diminish what it was.

      "Instead, why not encourage them to work to better themselves, at the same standards whites are held to? That would be true equality and color-blindness, and would go far toward defeating animosity between the races."

      Ahh...they should all be more like you? I'm currently on another forum that I was invited to join. One of the writers on that forum is in charge of hiring people. He's an admitted racist. He posted this:

      " On one hand I know I tend to avoid hiring blacks even when their qualified because so many have accused me of being a racist if I don't agree with them, and even tried suing me if they didn't turn out to be all they claimed and I had to let them go. But I don't avoid them because I think their not qualified or because I dislike them, I do it because THEY as a group throw down the race card so often.

      I don't know about you but I can't afford law suits, even when I win hands down it costs a fortune in money and time, and I can't afford to ignore that hard reality.

      Tell me, if you were threatened and even occaasionally wrongfully sued by one or two easily identifable groups, would you start sidlining them or would you just accept the downside and hope it didn't put you out of business.

      If I hire them and they fling accusations against me it puts my own credibilit and job in jeapordy, but if I hire another candidate, "that I say I think is better qualified.....", that risk disappears completely.

      Of course I'll remind you that this cultural behavior is just one more thing I think the black community has embraced that is actually causing more harm to them than it's doing them good. And yes I think if they behaved more like other groups that rarely throw down the race card, many would be much better off as a result.

      I don't care if their great great grandfather was a slave, but I sure do care if they are likely to make trouble for me today if I allow them in my life.

      Does that make me a racist, I'd do the same to any one I could identify that I thought posed the same risk, and in fact do give the same excust to applicants who come on a little too strong in the interview. No one who has demanded anything of me in an interview has ever gotten a job from me.

      I've been accused of racism because I did not let a minority person continue to do a job after they told me and others at the company aspects of job were ruining their health.

      Another temporary worker I hired sued me becaue they were not selected for the permanent position that replaced their job. The person who did get that job was a different minority who was much much better qualified, and as things turned out much better at doing the whole job.

      One sued me because "I obviously disliked black females in traditional roles", she got a bad review. I guess it was hard for her to just say it was because she was black, because some of her other coworkers were black and doing very well in the same work group.

      Yup, it took me a while but I do realize that all I have to do to avoid those types of problems is hire people who are not likely to sue me.

      I'm no longer interestded in developing better people skills so that when I hire "high risk" people there will be less chance that they will sue me, one of those frivelous lawsuites cost my company just about $500,000 to WIN and that one didn't even make it to court. (he didn't win. It was an out of court settlement that cost his company half a million)

      It may not be legal to select "anothere candidate that seemed to be a better job fit", but as long as that's about all the feedback I give anyone that doesn't get the job, there seems to be little that can be done about it. I'm not stupid enough to tell people I did't like something that would qualify them to sue me.

      You may hate me for solving my problem that way, but only the black community has the power to avoid that form of descrimination by making themselves more like other minority cultures who don't bring that attitued and the threats that go with it to work.

      People like this who enjoy positions of power over those looking for work, keep those people looking for work by denying them jobs and perpetuating the cycle of racism, using every sort of excuse they can come up with as a justification for their racism.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "Yes, there was a truce, between north and south, which made this country one United nation"

      No Connie. It wasn't a Truce. A truce is a suspension of hostilities. It's an agreement between enemies or opponents to stop fighting or arguing for a certain time. Nothing is settled with a Truce.

      On April 9, 1865, the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia in the McLean House in the village of Appomattox Court House, Virginia signaled the end of the Civil War. The South Surrendered. They LOST the war. Your historical revisionism is showing.

      Here are the letters between Grant and Lee

      General R.E. Lee, Commanding C.S.A.:

      5 P.M., April 7th, 1865.

      The results of the last week must convince you of the hopelessness of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia in this struggle. I feel that it is so, and regard it as my duty to shift from myself the responsibility of any further effusion of blood by asking of you the surrender of that portion of the Confederate States army known as the Army of Northern Virginia.

      U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General"

      The note was carried through the Confederate lines and Lee promptly responded:

      April 7th, 1865.

      General: I have received your note of this date. Though not entertaining the opinion you express of the hopelessness of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia, I reciprocate your desire to avoid useless effusion of blood, and therefore, before considering your proposition, ask the terms you will offer on condition of its surrender.

      R.E. Lee, General."

      Grant received Lee's message after midnight and replied early in the morning giving his terms for surrender:

      April 8th, 1865.

      General R.E. Lee, Commanding C.S.A.:

      Your note of last evening in reply to mine of the same date, asking the conditions on which I will accept the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, is just received. In reply I would say that, peace being my great desire, there is but one condition I would insist upon,--namely, that the men and officers surrendered shall be disqualified for taking up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged. I will meet you, or will designate officers to meet any officers you may name for the same purpose, at any point agreeable to you, for the purpose of arranging definitely the terms upon which the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia will be received.

      U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General"

      The fighting continued and as Lee retreated further to the West he replied to Grant's message:

      "April 8th, 1865.

      General: I received at a late hour your note of to-day. In mine of yesterday I did not intend to propose the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, but to ask the terms of your proposition. To be frank, I do not think the emergency has arisen to call for the surrender of this army, but, as the restoration of peace should be the sole object of all, I desired to know whether your proposals would lead to that end. I cannot, therefore, meet you with a view to surrender the Army of Northern Virginia; but as far as your proposal may affect the Confederate States forces under my command, and tend to the restoration of peace, I should be pleased to meet you at 10 A.M. to-morrow on the old state road to Richmond, between the picket-lines of the two armies.

      R.E. Lee, General."

      Exhausted from stress and suffering the pain from a severe headache, Grant replied to Lee around 5 o'clock in the morning of April 9.

      "April 9th, 1865.

      General: Your note of yesterday is received. I have not authority to treat on the subject of peace. The meeting proposed for 10 A.M. to-day could lead to no good. I will state, however, that I am equally desirous for peace with yourself, and the whole North entertains the same feeling. The terms upon which peace can be had are well understood. By the South laying down their arms, they would hasten that most desirable event, save thousands of human lives, and hundreds of millions of property not yet destroyed. Seriously hoping that all our difficulties may be settled without the loss of another life, I subscribe myself, etc.,

      U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General"

      Still suffering his headache, General Grant approached the crossroads of Appomattox Court House where he was over taken by a messenger carrying Lee's reply.

      "April 9th, 1865.

      General: I received your note of this morning on the picket-line, whither I had come to meet you and ascertain definitely what terms were embraced in your proposal of yesterday with reference to the surrender of this army. I now ask an interview, in accordance with the offer contained in your letter of yesterday, for that purpose.

      R.E. Lee, General."

      Grant immediately dismounted, sat by the road and wrote the following reply to Lee.

      "April 9th, 1865.

      General R. E. Lee Commanding C. S. Army:

      Your note of this date is but this moment (11:50 A.M.) received, in consequence of my having passed from the Richmond and Lynchburg road to the Farmville and Lynchburg road. I am at this writing about four miles west of Walker's Church, and will push forward to the front for the purpose of meeting you. Notice sent to me on this road where you wish the interview to take place will meet me.

      U. S. Grant, Lieutenant-General."

      The two generals talked a bit about Mexico and moved on to a discussion of the terms of the surrender when Lee asked Grant to commit the terms to paper: "'Very well,' replied General Grant, 'I will write them out. He wrote very rapidly, and did not pause until he had finished the sentence ending with 'officers appointed by me to receive them.' He said afterward that it would be an unnecessary humiliation to require officers to surrender their swords, and a great hardship to deprive them of their personal baggage and horses, and after a short pause he wrote the sentence: 'This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage.

      Grant handed the document to Lee. After reviewing it, Lee informed Grant that the Cavalry men and Artillery men in the Confederate Army owned their horses and asked that they keep them. Grant agreed and Lee wrote a letter formally accepting the surrender. Lee then made his exit.

      That's called Surrender. That's not a truce. So don't start with historical revisionism here. Lee Surrendered the South to Grant at Appomattox in 1865. The North won. The South lost. That's history. That the South could never accept that is beside the point.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "Dragging race into it, and fueling racial animosity, only divides the country. Both blacks and whites were slaves and slaveholders, so there is no reason to even bring up race."

      That's bullshit Connie. All you need to do is read the articles of secession. Race WAS the issue. The South has ALWAYS been about White Supremacy. It was institutionalized in the South. The South has always been conservative and conservatives ALWAYS preserve and maintain their existing institutions, values and traditions. Those are facts. And as a conservative you should know that to be true. Do you compromise YOUR values? When do you do that Connie? Do you dump your traditional institutions without a fight? NEVER.

      "You can ask a hundred different people, and you'll probably get 100 different meanings. Who's to say who's "true meaning is correct? why should it be subject to media propaganda and control?"

      Do you believe in objective truth Connie? Or are you a relativist? I can't imagine a conservative being a relativist. When there are two opposing views, both might actually be wrong. But both cannot possiblly be right.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "Adagio dredges up all the old excuses for considering the flag objectionable, but never addresses the fact that most inner city blacks are more enslaved today than ever, only it's to the government instead of individuals."

      I don't go there because that's bullshit, and I don't accept bullshit as a justification for racism. Let me know when anybody in the inner city has scars from being whipped, or has the family sold at auction, or is hunted down and beaten, tortured, or hung because they tried to leave. Let me know when they are being forced to work in a field without pay from dawn to dusk. And by all means, let me know when you come back to reality rather than float these metaphorical assertions.

      "He also ignores the fact that many blacks don't like integration; there have been a lot of calls recently for black-only schools and clubs, and governments."

      Yeah, a lot. It's in the news everyday. Who's calling for this? Or don't you have anything to support this claim?

      " Do we want a free country, or do we want a totalitarian central government? Banning things that some people find objectionable, no matter how valid their objections may or may not be, isn't the way to go. That just limits freedom for everyone. "

      We banned slavery and segregation and discrimination in the work place. Was that a bad idea? Did that limit freedom? It may have limited the so-called freedom to deny others their freedom, but that's a bullshit argument. You don't have that freedom.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "You know, this discussion illustrates why America can never be united. We have completely opposing views on what kind of government we should have."

      Right. The political visions that clashed in the Civil War are really about who is the highest authority in our system. Is it the states, as the Confederates argue? Or is it the people, as Lincoln claims?

      We say it's the people. The preamble of the Constitution says ; "We the People" . Not "We the States".

      So which of us are more in line with the Constitution of the United States? The states have proven that they can and would tyrannize their people if they can get away with it. The Federal Government says, NO you can't. And we can stop you. So which side do you take? It's my view that the States have shown what they would do if they could do it, and there is nothing to check their tyranny. I have no reason to trust the states. I'm a citizen of the United States. I'm a resident in one of those states.

      " I believe in personal liberty, and a small central government, with sovereign states,"

      I believe in the sovereignty of the people. And that the Federal Government is all there is to protect us from the tyranny of the states.

      "People like Adagio want a strong federal government to take care of them, and quell diversity by forcing everyone to comply with their ideologies, even if that means trampling on an individual's inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the rights embodied in the Bill of Rights."

      People like Adagio don't want a Strong Central government to take care of us. We want it to keep people like you from acting on your desire for tyranny such as what you've proven in the past, and allowing that tyranny to take our rights from us. And as far as the Bill of Rights goes, don't make me laugh. Under the last president we lost the 4th, 6th and 8th Amendments and you never blinked an eye. Instead you scream about the 10th Amendment and "States Rights", which don't even exist and aren't even mentioned in the Amendment. If you actually read any of it, you'd know that. People have rights. States have powers. You should learn the difference.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 23 months ago from Southern Georgia

      Hi Connie, as I am about as Southern Heritage as one gets I thought I would put my two cents worth in on this issue. Having ancestors on both sides of my family who fought on the side of the Confederacy--some kept slaves and some didn't and one was on the Honor Guard of Lee at Appomattox Courthouse that fateful day--I feel somewhat impelled to say my peace about the flag in question.

      Let's face facts, I do respect my ancestors for fighting for what they thought was right. Having said that, I don't respect their ideas of right, and that includes slavery. You can say all day long the war wasn't about slavery, but it was part of the reason and even you cannot erase the fact.

      When I was a child many black people down here were still in a type of slavery. The share-cropping system many of them were forced to accept was sometimes even worse than being enslaved. And still, the Klan made its presence known, flying the Stars and Bars trying to keep the black people in line.

      It's not worth flying the controversial scrap of cloth over our government buildings if a facet of our American population is insulted by it. We are all citizens of this country now, get over it!

    • Alastar Packer profile image

      Alastar Packer 23 months ago from North Carolina

      Excellent, Randy. Your right of course in what you say but I have to tell this one I heard from an old-timer about a place in Georgia: seems in the 30s this white dude was neglecting his wife and children by drinking and whoring up all his money. One day as he left a watering hole he was shoved into a big car and driven to the country. There was a bonfire going and they stripped him, tied him in a chair with a pole attached, and dunked him a few times. Told if ever caught not doing the right things again his next dunking would be his last. He straightened-up, started doing right to his family and community and well, all's well that ends did for him from then on out.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 23 months ago from Southern Georgia

      This wasn't uncommon either in some places, Alastar. I've heard similar stories about the Klan. I am afraid however, they did more harm than good with their conduct in other areas during their ministrations of justice. :)

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      @Randy, I'm jealous about all those Confederate ancestors you have, LOL! in general, we have different ideas of right nowadays. I never said anything about supporting slavery. Yes, it was one part of the reason, but far from being the only or even major part, as many historians have pointed out.

      ***It's not worth flying the controversial scrap of cloth over our government buildings if a facet of our American population is insulted by it. We are all citizens of this country now, get over it!***

      The Rainbow flag offends a facet of the American population, yet that is publicly flown and embraced in the Capitol!

      It's also more than just the government buildings that are at stake. They are trying to remove the flag even from the graves of the soldiers who fought under it. Also, companies like Ebay and Zazzle have banned us from selling Confederate flag merchandise, which is infringing on our rights.

      Why can't the people who are always offended by everything, "get over it?" They are the ones that always want to ban everything they don't like, and tell us what we can and can't buy! Tolerance has to be a two way street, or it is meaningless.

      @Alastair, I guess back then people didn't mess around!

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      @adagio4639 Wow, you really put a lot of time and effort into this discussion! I’m sorry I don’t have the time or ambition to reply to everything you’ve written. My computer is getting repaired, so I have to wait until I can use my work computer to do anything online. I will try to answer a few or your statements. (And no, I’m not trying to take anything out of context. The quotes are brief to save space, but my answers apply to your whole statement. Also, I want to thank you, because you’ve given me material for more Hubs. (If I ever get around to actually writing them).

      ***I've presented for you a logical syllogism that demonstrates without question that the flag was a symbol of slavery. In a deductive syllogism if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true.***

      The key thing here is “if the premises are true.” I’ve already shown that the second premise is false. A battle flag doesn’t represent the constitution, the national flag does. The battle flag is a standard for the soldiers to follow into battle. Most of the confederate soldiers were not slaveholders, and many were anti-slavery. They were fighting to defend their homelands from the invading Yankees. Back then people had more loyalty to their individual state, than to the Union, and they certainly didn’t believe that the federal government had the right to use troops against the states or the people. That’s because the states when they broke away from England, were separate and sovereign. Of course, that changed and the states lost their sovereignty after the Civil War.

      Using your “logical syllogism” , I can prove that the US flag is just as much a symbol of slavery.

      P1. The USA embedded slavery into its Constitution. (Which you admitted yourself).

      P2. The flag symbolizes the Confederacy and its constitution on the battlefield.

      C: Therefore, the flag symbolizes slavery on the battlefield.

      I can also prove that the USA flag is a symbol of racism.

      P1. Lincoln was openly racist before he was elected president. (http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2009/02/wa...

      P2. The voters of the North elected a racist president.

      C: The must either have been racists themselves, or at least approved of it.

      P1. The Union was racist.

      P2. The flag is a symbol of the Union.

      C: Therefore, the US flag is racist.

      Not to mention all the atrocities that were perpetrated under that flag against the Indians and other minorities.

      ***We banned slavery and segregation and discrimination in the work place. Was that a bad idea? Did that limit freedom?***

      That is not at all what I’m talking about. The federal government is constantly trying to have more and more control over our individual daily lives. It is too much to get into here. One example is the individual mandate of Obamacare. Maybe I’ll write a hub about that someday.

      ***That's called Surrender. That's not a truce. So don't start with historical revisionism here. Lee Surrendered the South to Grant at Appomattox in 1865. The North won. The South lost. That's history.***

      When I mentioned a truce, I wasn’t talking about the end of the Civil War. I’m talking about the hard feelings between North and South that persisted long after the war, until finally both sides agreed to respect the other and work to make one great country. It has nothing to do with Lee’s surrender.

      ***White Supremacy and racism is foundational to America. It’s embedded in our constitution.***

      Not surprising, seeing as the country was founded by whites. It’s like saying, “Black supremacy is foundational to Africa.” Or “Japanese supremacy is foundational to Japan.” However, you are forgetting that slavery in this country was actually started by a black (and the blacks that were brought to this country as slaves, were sold into slavery by other blacks, not whites.). And both blacks and whites were slaves. Which is why I say that race is not an issue. It’s certainly not an issue of “white supremacy.”

      ***That's funny coming from a conservative that wants to return to the old days of slavery and Jim Crow.***

      I certainly don’t want to return to the days of slavery and Jim Crow. If it weren’t for slavery, we wouldn’t be having this argument, because there wouldn’t be any issue of race. But that doesn’t mean there wouldn’t have been secession or even a Civil War. Several of the Northern states actually threatened secession before the Southern states did.

      ***I live in the 21st Century Connie.***

      Really? Then why are you so concerned with what the flag may or may not have signified 150 years ago?

      ***You're attempting to create some symbolic slavery with the real thing. Nobody is in chains today. Nobody is under the whip of the over seer. Nobody can have their family broken apart or sold off. Nobody works for free from sunrise to sundown and then sent to a hovel until the next day. Nobody is kept from leaving for fear of being hunted down and beaten, whipped, or hung for doing it. Nobody is sold at auction like livestock. Those ridiculous metaphorical comparisons to what REAL slavery was like only serve to diminish what it was.***

      Earlier, you accused me of using anecdotal examples as representative of the entire race. That is exactly what you are doing here. I’ve read a lot of eyewitness accounts of the ante-bellum South, and these behaviors were quite definitely in the minority. Most slaveowners, black and white, treated their slaves very well, took care of them when they were sick, even educated some of them, and gave them time off and spending money, usually on Saturdays, to go into town. Many of the slaves thought of themselves as family, and were devoted to their former masters long after the war. (I don’t have time to go get all the quotes from the books and write down the references. Sorry about that.)

      ***There is no media that calls whites racist by their very nature. NONE.***

      I really need to bookmark things for future reference when I see them. Here are a couple of examples, though.

      http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/14771/

      http://www.salon.com/2015/01/16/white_people_are_m...

      ***conservatives ALWAYS preserve and maintain their existing institutions, values and traditions.***

      Then apparently none of the Republicans are conservatives. Anyway, what is wrong with maintaining one’s values and traditions? That is foundational to a stable society. Constant change doesn’t mean progress, but it can certainly cause a lot of chaos.

      *** When there are two opposing views, both might actually be wrong. But both cannot possiblly be right.***

      That is true. But who determines which one of us is right or whether we are both wrong? I could give you just as much “History. Logic. Reason. Rationality” to prove my point, as you can give me. (Actually I don’t have the time or ambition. It has been done by others though). Yes, I do believe in objective truth. And I believe I have the truth. You also believe you have the truth. Therefore, we could argue for the rest of our lives, and still not convince each other.

      ***And as far as the Bill of Rights goes, don't make me laugh. Under the last president we lost the 4th, 6th and 8th Amendments and you never blinked an eye. Instead you scream about the 10th Amendment***

      Why do you say I never blinked an eye? Just because I didn’t write a hub about it? I don’t think I was even on Hubpages then. That doesn’t mean I didn’t object to it, because I certainly did. In fact, that’s just one more example of federal tyranny. But should we just give up all the Bill of Rights because a few are taken away? By the way, if the Federal government represents the people, then why, when California put gay marriage to a popular vote, and 70% of THE PEOPLE voted no, did a federal judge overrule that? That wasn’t the state being tyrannical, that was the popular vote. Regardless of whether you feel that gay marriage is a “right” or not, THE PEOPLE spoke, and the federal government that is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” should have upheld the majority decision. Or is the government only for a select few people, instead of the majority of the citizens?

    • Alastar Packer profile image

      Alastar Packer 23 months ago from North Carolina

      Can't disagree with you bro.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "Wow, you really put a lot of time and effort into this discussion! "

      Thanks. You're worth the effort aren't you?

      "Also, I want to thank you, because you’ve given me material for more Hubs. (If I ever get around to actually writing them)."

      That's great to hear. Disagreement is what increases knowledge. I hope all of this inspires more Hubs.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "The key thing here is “if the premises are true.”

      Absolutely

      " I’ve already shown that the second premise is false. A battle flag doesn’t represent the constitution, the national flag does. The battle flag is a standard for the soldiers to follow into battle."

      Nice try Connie, but in logic that's called a Distinction without a Difference. It's the assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are exactly the same -- at least in practice or practical terms. As a banner used to rally the troops on the battlefield it's obvious which troops it was appealing to. That banner rallied Confederate troops committed to the Confederate cause which was defined n their Articles of Secession AND the CSA Constitution. It was a Confederate flag. It still is.

      "Most of the confederate soldiers were not slaveholders, and many were anti-slavery."

      We don't know how many held slaves or didn't. What we do know is that MOST, if not All of them were committed to White Supremacy which was at the heart of the Confederacy. Just because some didn't own slaves, doesn't mean that they didn't aspire to owning them. Americans are great optimists, and I have no doubt that most of them hoped, one day to own a plantation of their own. But it's certain that most of them had no intentions of having African slaves achieve equal status with them. They would be "no-better " than a slave. And "Southern Pride" would NEVER accept that.

      "They were fighting to defend their homelands from the invading Yankees."

      They weren't defending their homelands in Gettysburg or Antietam or the battles fought in Kentucky. Pennsylvania, Maryland and Kentucky weren't Southern States. The attack on Fort Sumter was an attack on the US. Of course there would be a response.

      "Back then people had more loyalty to their individual state, than to the Union, and they certainly didn’t believe that the federal government had the right to use troops against the states or the people. "

      Did you know that under the Articles of Confederation, New Jersey and Connecticut nearly declared war on New York over tariffs? NY controlled the harbor of NY and was price gouging goods going to NJ and Conn. The Articles were a failure. That's what came out of the Revolutionary War. We had no president, because there was no executive branch or judiciary. It was a loose "friendship" arrangement and it failed as a governing document. The states were all separate countries as united STATES rather than what we now know as the UNITED STATES. So while you object to the Federal Government using troops against the states, you have no objection to the states using troops against other states. The Constitution created a Nation out of the states. Lincoln intended to preserve that nation, and he did.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "“Of course, that changed and the states lost their sovereignty after the Civil War.”

      They actually lost that when they signed the Constitution. “We the People. Not “We the States”. Lincoln understood that the people are sovereign, not the states, and that the federal government represents the people as stated in the preamble of the Constitution.

      “Using your “logical syllogism” , I can prove that the US flag is just as much a symbol of slavery.

      P1. The USA embedded slavery into its Constitution. (Which you admitted yourself).

      P2. The flag symbolizes the United States ( Not the Confederacy…I think that’s what you meant to say) and its constitution on the battlefield.

      C: Therefore, the flag symbolizes slavery on the battlefield.

      And you’d be right. As you can see the Framers of the Constitution created a problem with Article 1 sec 2, Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4, sec 2. By addressing the issue of slavery in this way they actually embedded the institution of slavery into the Constitution. They recognized it as legitimate. If they hadn’t, the Constitution never would have been ratified by the Southern States, so it was a concession to those states to get them into the fold. Nevertheless the issue of slavery was the can that was kicked down the road to be dealt with later. By the time that Lincoln was elected, abolition movements had gained strength and Lincoln was seen as an abolitionist by the southern States. It was his election that would be a catalyst to their secession. He had stated that his intention was to preserve the Union but the Southern states weren’t buying it.

      There was no way that any of the Amendments that we call the Reconstruction Amendments could have passed a divided congress. The Southern States would never agree to them. And of course the War got in the way of that as well. So the war was conducted in spite of the fact that slavery was still institutionalized in the Constitution. The Reconstruction Amendments (13, 14, and 15) finally solved the issue.

      Amendment 14:

      “...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....”

      And one thing that clause does, is to take the Bill of Rights, almost all of it, and allow you to assert those rights against the states. The original Bill of Rights, remember, only gave you rights against the federal government.

      The 14th Amendment gives three different kinds of protection.

      It says states can't take away life, liberty, or property without due process, that's the due process clause, and that they can't deny people equal protection.

      But there's another clause that people don't talk about so much. It says “...no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...”

      This privileges or immunities clause probably sounds pretty important to you, it probably sounds like it does protect some substantive rights. And there's pretty good historical evidence that the reconstruction Congress, the people who wrote the privileges or immunities clause did intend it to protect some rights, including the Bill of Rights provisions. But the Supreme Court said no. In a case decided soon after the Civil War, it said that the privileges or immunities clause means basically nothing. And ever since then, despite arguments from a lot of different people, from a lot of different political perspectives, the clause has been dead words. The Supreme Court isn't willing to look back and consider whether it made a mistake, even though most people, liberals and conservatives alike, think it did.

      Now, one reason the Court hasn't done that, is that it's doing basically the same thing, it's protecting basically the same rights, under the due process clause. So maybe it doesn't matter all that much now, except that maybe if the Supreme Court said, it's the Privileges and Immunities Clause that protects these rights. People wouldn't say, wait substantive due process. That's like jumbo shrimp. But substantive due process also protects other things. The right to use contraception, for instance. The right to abortion. The right to have children if you want, and to be recognized as their parent. These aren't in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else in the Constitution. So now there's another question. Where do those rights come from? The Supreme Court has never really answered that. But it turns out that the Constitution does say something about it. The Ninth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, says that the enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "P2. The voters of the North elected a racist president."

      It wouldn't be the first time, would it? But whatever the attitudes that Lincoln and others might have held personally has nothing to do with what is required by the Constitution. And Lincoln didn't allow whatever personal views he may have had to get in the way of what was right for the country. That's what statesmen and leaders do. They put the needs of the country ahead of their personal beliefs.

      P1. Lincoln was openly racist before he was elected president.

      P2. The voters of the North elected a racist president.

      C: They must either have been racists themselves, or at least approved of it.

      According to that logic we could say

      P1. Kennedy was a Catholic

      P2. The Voters elected a Catholic president

      C: Therefore, they must have been Catholics themselves or at least approved of it.

      Lincoln did not impose his view on race into the Constitution of the United States, anymore than Kennedy imposed his religion on the Constitution. The Civil War was not over racism. It was over slavery.

      The Constitution of the CSA institutionalized slavery as an principal element of its entire existence. It created a slave state.

      “P1. The Union was racist.

      P2. The flag is a symbol of the Union.

      C: Therefore, the US flag is racist.

      Premise 1 can’t be demonstrated as true. The logical structure is valid, but the conclusion isn’t sound. There is a difference between validity and soundness. A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

      You can say without question that P2 is true. But you can’t make that claim for P1 and your conclusion rests on the primary premise. Although a lot of people might be able to make the argument that the United States is a racist country, and I’m not sure that I’d argue against that. The Civil War was not fought over racism. It was over slavery.

      “Not to mention all the atrocities that were perpetrated under that flag against the Indians and other minorities.”

      I totally agree with you. The trail of tears under Jackson was genocidal. It’s one of the most horrible chapters in our history.

      “**We banned slavery and segregation and discrimination in the work place. Was that a bad idea? Did that limit freedom?*** That is not at all what I’m talking about. The federal government is constantly trying to have more and more control over our individual daily lives. It is too much to get into here. One example is the individual mandate of Obamacare. Maybe I’ll write a hub about that someday.”

      I know you’d prefer not to talk about that, but when you complain about the government taking more and more control over our individual daily lives, you fail to acknowledge that banning slavery segregation and discrimination in the work place served as positive effects of government intervention.

      I don’t trust the states to act in the best interests of its people. I see states, especially in the Red States, that act out of the ideology of those that are in control of it. Since I’m adamantly opposed to ideological thinking, I’m opposed to that.

      “When I mentioned a truce, I wasn’t talking about the end of the Civil War. I’m talking about the hard feelings between North and South that persisted long after the war, until finally both sides agreed to respect the other and work to make one great country. It has nothing to do with Lee’s surrender.”

      I see. But do you really think we’ve achieved that? I think we’re still fighting the Civil War. At least ideologically speaking. It’s a “Cold War”. But I hear talk of secession coming from Red States, and from talk radio people. Sean Hannity asked his listeners what kind of Revolution would they prefer; Military Coup, armed rebellion, or war of secession? #3 seemed most realistic to Hannity. He admitted that it might lead to mass migrations of the minority partisans out of the rebel states. Of course, that may be fine with those states. Nice talk Sean. If rebellion against this democracy is what you’re calling for, lets debate over just exactly what kind of rebellion you prefer. Still think there’s some kind of Truce in effect? I don’t. Obama made good on almost every one of his original campaign promises, but the one that he couldn’t pull off is the Red State/ Blue State divide and that was really out of his control. As much as he wanted to bring that together, he really couldn’t anticipate the hatred directed at him, not for his policies, but for who he is, and there’s no policy cure for that.

      “**We banned slavery and segregation and discrimination in the work place. Was that a bad idea? Did that limit freedom?*** That is not at all what I’m talking about. The federal government is constantly trying to have more and more control over our individual daily lives. It is too much to get into here. One example is the individual mandate of Obamacare. Maybe I’ll write a hub about that someday.”

      I know you’d prefer not to talk about that, but when you complain about the government taking more and more control over our individual daily lives, you fail to acknowledge that banning slavery segregation and discrimination in the work place served as positive effects of government intervention.

      I don’t trust the states to act in the best interests of its people. I see states, especially in the Red States, that act out of the ideology of those that are in control of it. Since I’m adamantly opposed to ideological thinking, I’m opposed to that.

      “When I mentioned a truce, I wasn’t talking about the end of the Civil War. I’m talking about the hard feelings between North and South that persisted long after the war, until finally both sides agreed to respect the other and work to make one great country. It has nothing to do with Lee’s surrender.”

      I see. But do you really think we’ve achieved that? I think we’re still fighting the Civil War. At least ideologically speaking. It’s a “Cold War”. But I hear talk of secession coming from Red States, and from talk radio people. Sean Hannity asked his listeners what kind of Revolution would they prefer; Military Coup, armed rebellion, or war of secession? #3 seemed most realistic to Hannity. He admitted that it might lead to mass migrations of the minority partisans out of the rebel states. Of course, that may be fine with those states. Nice talk Sean. If rebellion against this democracy is what you’re calling for, lets debate over just exactly what kind of rebellion you prefer. Still think there’s some kind of Truce in effect? I don’t. Obama made good on almost every one of his original campaign promises, but the one that he couldn’t pull off is the Red State/ Blue State divide and that was really out of his control. As much as he wanted to bring that together, he really couldn’t anticipate the hatred directed at him, not for his policies, but for who he is, and there’s no policy cure for that.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: “However, you are forgetting that slavery in this country was actually started by a black (and the blacks that were brought to this country as slaves, were sold into slavery by other blacks, not whites.)”.

      That’s a false claim and I have no idea where you’re getting this from. Slaves were first brought to America in 1619 at Jamestown and it was by a Dutch ship. And they were not brought here by blacks nor were they sold here by blacks. After 1619, when a Dutch ship brought 20 Africans ashore at the British colony of Jamestown, Virginia, slavery spread throughout the American colonies. Though it is impossible to give accurate figures, some historians have estimated that 6 to 7 million slaves were imported to the New World during the 18th century alone. If your claim is that blacks in Africa sold other blacks to white slavers then that’s certainly true. Many tribes would capture members of other tribes and sell them as slaves to whites willing to buy them. But do you somehow think that this absolves Whites from their own complicity in slavery? Nobody forced them to buy human beings and sell them as slaves in America. And nobody forced the White plantation owners to buy them. Why are you trying to turn this into a lets blame the blacks thing? Slavery in this country was NOT started by blacks so stop with the historical revisionism. You undermine your own credibility with that kind of bullshit.

      “And both blacks and whites were slaves. Which is why I say that race is not an issue. It’s certainly not an issue of “white supremacy.”

      Really? Can you show me some figures that show that 6 or 7 million white slaves existed in this country? I’d like to see that. There were indentured servants here. And they were servants for a limited period of time, but they were then free to go. And that was that. But don’t confuse or conflate indentured servitude with slavery.

      Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607. Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

      Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

      In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

      As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

      "That is true. But who determines which one of us is right or whether we are both wrong? I could give you just as much “History. Logic. Reason. Rationality” to prove my point, as you can give me. "

      You think so?? I don’t. And here’s why. An argument is not about proving that you are right. It’s about being able to demonstrate why the other person is wrong. By your statement you clearly apply inductive reasoning to every argument. And induction NEVER proves anything. And that was shown to be to be true back in the 1700’s by David Hume who put forth the “problem of induction”. He showed why we cannot prove that our science is rational through induction. And that problem was never solved until the 20th Century by a Scientific Philosopher named Karl Popper. He didn’t’ really solve the problem. He just showed that we were approaching it wrong.

      It's called the Principle of Falsifiability. It was introduced by Popper and it's based on deductive logic in the form called Modus Tollens. Briefly it means that all theories, ideas, and claims are held to intense criticism. We can never prove a theory is true. To do that requires that we use Inductive reasoning, and induction only provides a generality. It NEVER gives us the Truth. It's bottom up reasoning. But we can demonstrate how a theory is false. Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the accordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true. Deductive reasoning is sometimes referred to as top-down logic. Its counterpart, inductive reasoning, is sometimes referred to as bottom-up logic. Where deductive reasoning proceeds from general premises to a specific conclusion, inductive reasoning proceeds from specific premises to a general conclusion.

      The Greek philosopher Aristotle, who is considered the father of deductive reasoning, wrote the following classic example:

      •All men are mortal.

      •Socrates is a man.

      •Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

      In other words, an argument is not about proving that you are right. It’s about being able to demonstrate why the other person is wrong. If I “Win” an argument Connie, it’s not because I’ve proved that I’m right. I can’t do that. I’m a fallibalist and I already know that I could be wrong about a lot of things. If I “win” any argument it’s because I’ve been able to demonstrate why another person’s argument is false.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "Yes, I do believe in objective truth. And I believe I have the truth. You also believe you have the truth. Therefore, we could argue for the rest of our lives, and still not convince each other."

      I'm sure you believe that you have the truth Connie, but nobody can possess the truth. I don't believe that I possess the Truth. It's not something that anybody can possess. We can acquire it incrementally. We get glimpses of it when we can determine what is false. When we do that, we remove those things that obscure the truth from our vision. But the Truth is far too vast to assume that it's something that we can put into our pocket. Anybody that assumes that they have the truth is a hopeless ideologue.

      You used this premise in your syllogism: ““P1. The Union was racist.” How can you demonstrate that premise as true? The ”Union” is not an ideology. Ideologies are racist. The South is not racist. The Confederacy was. The Confederacy was based on racist ideology that found slavery as morally justified. I’ve written articles that demonstrate that Conservatism, as an ideology, is racist. But that’s another topic.

      You say you believe you have the Truth. What was the basis or criteria or standard that was used to determine the truth?

      As a value, Truth is determined by human judgement, not any particular demonstration. So there can be no basis or criteria or standard. Otherwise that would be to remove the human element from this. Truth is determined by humans, not criteria or standards or bases. Moreover, a criteria cannot be its own criteria. Again, it is an issue of responsibility. Even assuming you have a criteria you think is adequate, how did you determine that? Are you responsible for that judgement, or is the criteria responsible? Merely claiming a standard or a criteria or a basis does not help one to demonstrate the truth of values. Instead, it creates a certain amount of hypocrisy. If we claim a basis gives us truth, we then are making the implicit claim that truth requires bases. But then it is plainly obvious our own basis lacks a basis, as it cannot be its own basis. By claiming truth must be demonstrated by bases we undermine our own moral integrity.

      As a Conservative, which I think you are, your ideology is foundational. That means it sits on some principle, or foundation. But that begs the question what is the foundation sitting on because it can’t be its own foundation. People who are dogmatic and dictatorial because they think they have a positive methodology are people with foundational ideologies. Moreover, as I pointed out before, the positive methodology can’t demonstrate its own truth. Its own standards can’t justify its own standards. So those with positive methodologies either have to resort to circular arguments or hypocrisy or both.

      So when you say this: “"Yes, I do believe in objective truth. And I believe I have the truth. You also believe you have the truth. Therefore, we could argue for the rest of our lives, and still not convince each other." The important thing to understand here is that with an argument, if you believe in Objective Truth, then both sides cannot be right. They could both be wrong, but they both can’t be right. The question is, to what extent have you held your own beliefs up to criticism to find the flaws. Unless you think that your ideas are infallibly true, then you must know that flaws exist in your thinking. Like everyone, you too, are fallible and prone to error. That means your ideology which is man-made, is prone to error. You can’t create an infallible idea from a fallible source.

      If I criticize your argument, you should take it as a given, that I’ve already put my own beliefs up to just as much intense scrutiny as I have yours. I already know I could be wrong, so I look for where the errors might be found. I don’t have to be right about everything, but I’d rather not be wrong if I can avoid it, and I can avoid that by being critical of my own views. I have never simply accepted what I’ve been told either by a person or especially any ideology and used that as my moral or political compass.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "Why do you say I never blinked an eye? Just because I didn’t write a hub about it? I don’t think I was even on Hubpages then. That doesn’t mean I didn’t object to it, because I certainly did. In fact, that’s just one more example of federal tyranny."

      Good. I'm glad to hear that. My mistake.

      "But should we just give up all the Bill of Rights because a few are taken away?

      No. We shouldn't. But we haven't given up all of the Bill of Rights. Most of them have been restored now. We've banned torture so the 8th Amendment is back in place. We're back to speedy trials and habeas corpus has been restored. The 4th still needs help.

      "By the way, if the Federal government represents the people, then why, when California put gay marriage to a popular vote, and 70% of THE PEOPLE voted no, did a federal judge overrule that?"

      "That wasn’t the state being tyrannical, that was the popular vote. Regardless of whether you feel that gay marriage is a “right” or not, THE PEOPLE spoke, and the federal government that is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” should have upheld the majority decision. Or is the government only for a select few people, instead of the majority of the citizens?"

      Because very often the public votes with their gut instead of their brains. And their gut may see no problem in violating the constitution and peoples rights. The public for the most part is totally ignorant of the Constitution. Lets face it, they don't make their livings pouring over the constitution and studying it and the previous cases that serve as precedent for decisions. They let their emotions dictate their actions. That would easily be the case in the days of the Civil Rights movement. Had Civil Rights been put to a vote in the South, we both know that it never would have passed. So do we deny Civil Rights to blacks because the majority of White Southerners that didn't want it, could have their way? We have a Bill of Rights to prevent mob rule. So...the Federal Government represents ALL the people and is charged with protecting the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The BoR protects minority rights. The majority always has its way except when it comes to denying rights to others. In a pure Democracy the majority always rules. That's why we aren't a pure Democracy. Pure Democracies don't have a Bill of Rights protecting minorities and that always puts them at the mercy of the majority.

      So we need an independent judiciary to determine whether the constitution is being followed, or ignored by popular opinion or emotional interests. People like Huckabee rant and rave about the tryanny of the court and the end of the world, but as an Evangelical preacher, he's hardly unbiased in his view on this subject and lets his religious views cloud his judgement of the meaning of the constitution.

    • Alastar Packer profile image

      Alastar Packer 23 months ago from North Carolina

      Somebody writing a book on here?:)

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      @Alastar, it does seem to be turning into a book!

      @Adagio:

      ***@Connie: “However, you are forgetting that slavery in this country was actually started by a black (and the blacks that were brought to this country as slaves, were sold into slavery by other blacks, not whites.)”.That’s a false claim and I have no idea where you’re getting this from. Slaves were first brought to America in 1619 at Jamestown and it was by a Dutch ship. And they were not brought here by blacks nor were they sold here by blacks. After 1619, when a Dutch ship brought 20 Africans ashore at the British colony of Jamestown, Virginia, slavery spread throughout the American colonies. Though it is impossible to give accurate figures, some historians have estimated that 6 to 7 million slaves were imported to the New World during the 18th century alone. If your claim is that blacks in Africa sold other blacks to white slavers then that’s certainly true. Many tribes would capture members of other tribes and sell them as slaves to whites willing to buy them. But do you somehow think that this absolves Whites from their own complicity in slavery? Nobody forced them to buy human beings and sell them as slaves in America. And nobody forced the White plantation owners to buy them. Why are you trying to turn this into a lets blame the blacks thing? Slavery in this country was NOT started by blacks so stop with the historical revisionism. You undermine your own credibility with that kind of bullshit.***

      Calling statements you can’t answer “b.s.” is undermining your credibility. I’m not trying to absolve whites from anything, or turning it into let’s blame the blacks. I’m just pointing out that because both races participated in slavery, so you can’t castigate whites only for something that they both did. Both races were complicit.

      You seem to have done research on the indenture system, but not as much on slavery. You are correct that at first there were no slavery laws, so blacks and white were all just indentured servants and eventually got their freedom. No, my claim that slavery was started by a black is not false, and certainly not historical revisionism (which is a liberal term for history that they want suppressed). Maybe I should have worded it better and stated legalized slavery. It is documented in books, but I did a brief internet search to put up a link for you. http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/father-of-u-s-slavery-w... As far as white slaves, I don’t have any numbers, and don’t really have to time to research it. But it has been mentioned in many books about whites being sold as slaves in the colonies, usually for debt or for being Catholic in Protestant England, or for some crime.

      ***"That is true. But who determines which one of us is right or whether we are both wrong? I could give you just as much “History. Logic. Reason. Rationality” to prove my point, as you can give me. " You think so?? I don’t. And here’s why. An argument is not about proving that you are right. It’s about being able to demonstrate why the other person is wrong.***

      OK, so perhaps I should have said, I could give you just as much ‘history logic, reason, rationality’ to prove you are wrong as you could give to prove I’m wrong.” Either way, the end result is the same. Either way, we could argue for the rest of our lives, and never convince the other.

      ***You used this premise in your syllogism: ““P1. The Union was racist.” How can you demonstrate that premise as true? The ”Union” is not an ideology. Ideologies are racist. The South is not racist. The Confederacy was. The Confederacy was based on racist ideology that found slavery as morally justified.***

      If the Union (being another term for the USA) is not an ideology, neither is the Confederacy, since they are both countries. Both the USA and the CSA have slavery embedded in their constitution, so they are both based on the racist ideology that found slavery morally justified. It has nothing to do with “kicking the can down the road.” There’s just as much can-kicking in the CSA as the USA, because the reason why slavery was put into the CSA Constitution was to appease the slaveowners, who controlled much of the economy. Many people in the South knew that slavery would soon be phased out, but they wanted to do it gradually, so that the freed blacks wouldn’t just be dumped on society. This is well documented in books; I’m sure an internet search would also bring up sources, but I just don’t have the time, and it’s rather pointless to continue the discussion.

      ***“When I mentioned a truce, I wasn’t talking about the end of the Civil War. I’m talking about the hard feelings between North and South that persisted long after the war, until finally both sides agreed to respect the other and work to make one great country. It has nothing to do with Lee’s surrender.” I see. But do you really think we’ve achieved that? I think we’re still fighting the Civil War. At least ideologically speaking. It’s a “Cold War”.***

      It was only a Truce, and while it worked for a while, that truce is now over. I think there is too much of a divide between the North and South to ever have complete harmony. Which is why some people are calling for the elimination of the white South. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how... (“demographic change” on pg. 2 of the article, is considered genocide by the UN). Short of genocide, or a complete dictatorship, the only other solution IS secession, because it’s obvious that the two sections are diametrically opposed. I don’t listen to Hannity or any other talk shows, and usually don’t agree with them, but in this case, I think he’s right. Certainly, this conflict proves that wars often don’t solve anything, because might doesn’t make right.

      ***As a Conservative, which I think you are, your ideology is foundational. That means it sits on some principle, or foundation.***

      No, I don’t subscribe to the Conservative ideology, but any ideology that isn’t based on a clear principle or foundation, isn’t worth much. I base my ideas on reason, and reason necessarily sits on a solid foundation. (I know, I left that wide open. I’m sure you’ll have a whole long explanation of reason). BTW, you keep talking about the foundation of my “Conservative ideology.” What about your liberal ideology? What foundation or principle does that sit on?

      ***The important thing to understand here is that with an argument, if you believe in Objective Truth, then both sides cannot be right. They could both be wrong, but they both can’t be right. The question is, to what extent have you held your own beliefs up to criticism to find the flaws. Unless you think that your ideas are infallibly true, then you must know that flaws exist in your thinking. Like everyone, you too, are fallible and prone to error. That means your ideology which is man-made, is prone to error. You can’t create an infallible idea from a fallible source.

      If I criticize your argument, you should take it as a given, that I’ve already put my own beliefs up to just as much intense scrutiny as I have yours. I already know I could be wrong, so I look for where the errors might be found. I don’t have to be right about everything, but I’d rather not be wrong if I can avoid it, and I can avoid that by being critical of my own views. I have never simply accepted what I’ve been told either by a person or especially any ideology and used that as my moral or political compass.***

      I can say the same thing.

      I think I’m going to let this discussion come to an end, although feel free to post as much as you want. At this stage, it’s really not accomplishing anything. You can use a lot of big fancy words about various types of reasoning, objective truth, etc., and impress some people into agreeing with you, but that still doesn’t mean you are right. I prefer just to state simple facts and hope that readers have enough common sense to make up their own minds. I’m not into all the various schools of thought and philosophy. Anyway, this discussion has veered away from its origin.

    • MizBejabbers profile image

      MizBejabbers 23 months ago

      You just make too much sense, and this brings out all the anti-South hate people who cherry pick their quotes for their battle. I believe I am well informed on this subject because of some coincidental research I did for a friend on his doctorate thesis. Check out the federal register of the couple of years before the war. Of about 120 pages of congressional dialog, only about 12 pages were an argument for abolition, and it went nowhere. Most of the pages of argument was over taxing imports from the Caribbean. The truth is in the Federal Registers, but then I expect somebody to call me a liar.

      P.S. There is a popular quote in Arkansas that is appropriate today: "Mr. Sam is rollin' over in his grave."

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "BTW, you keep talking about the foundation of my “Conservative ideology.” What about your liberal ideology? What foundation or principle does that sit on?"

      It doesn't. Liberalism isn't an ideology. It's not foundational. It's really not based on anything. You may think that's absurd, but it doesn't have to defend a position irrationally as conservatism does. It's non-dogmatic. Conservatism can't justify Conservatism. It's based on itself and that's circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Liberalism has no doctrine. No dogma to follow. Liberalism comes from the European Enlightenment and the philosophy of John Locke, which BTW, was the founding principle of this country. Conservatism comes out of the Anti-Enlightenment Traditionalism of Edmund Burke.

      Liberalism is not doctrinaire. It constantly changes. It never stays in one place long enough to become and ideology. Ideologies don't change. That's why Conservatism is ideological. It's a foundational ideology and it's based on traditionalism. But what is traditionalism based on ? It resists change. In fact conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      MizBejabbers, Thank you for that documentation. I'll certainly check it out.

      Adagio, Yes, I do think it's absurd to believe in something that's not based on anything. It is still an ideology, you can do any number of searches online to find that out. However, this is off topic to the original discussion.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      Connie. It's not. I've studied philosophy and political science and I know the difference between ideology and philosophy. Ideologies don't change. Religions for example, are ideologies. They have doctrines and canon' s and they are followed dogmatically. And you may think that it's absurd, but whats truly absurd is trying to defend a baseless ideology with irrational arguments. Can you demonstrate what your beliefs are based on?

      Conservatism IS an ideology and it was defined as such by Russell Kirk in his 1953 book, The Conservative Mind. That book was a guiding influence for Ronald Reagan who gave Kirk the Medal of Freedom. In that book Kirk laid out his 6 "Canon's " of Conservatism. Canons come out of religious doctrines. In them he describes the essentials of conservative thought. It's basically warmed over Edmund Burke who was the acknowledged father of modern Conservatism. His attitude was Anti-Enlightenment and he was a traditionalist conservative. He rejected science which should come as no surprise. He opposed the Enlightenment views of John Locke, Hobbes, Voltaire, Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and others who influenced the American Revolution. There is no such doctrine of liberalism Liberalism has no defining character other then change. It always challenges the status-quo. It never stays in one place long enough to become an ideology. Conservatism always resists that challenge to its traditions and institutions.

      There are very fundamental differences between philosophy and ideology. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs, doctrines that back a certain social institution or a particular organization. Philosophy refers to looking at life in a pragmatic manner and attempting to understand why life is as it is and the principles governing behind it.

      Ideology is rigid and once fixed on certain beliefs, refuses to change its stance irrespective of any change in the surrounding environment. Challenging an ideologue can be the most difficult task. A philosopher, on the other hand, may arrive on some construct for the basis of life and other things but will be willing to discuss and ponder other philosophies. A philosopher is open minded and willing to listen to criticism whereas an ideologue will refute anything challenging his or her ideology outright. This also suggests that while philosophy encourages people to think, ideology discourages any thinking that goes against the basic doctrines that govern the ideology.

      And there you can see the differences between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism is ideological. Liberalism is Philosophical.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: " However, this is off topic to the original discussion."

      You brought it up. You said this: " BTW, you keep talking about the foundation of my “Conservative ideology.” What about your liberal ideology? What foundation or principle does that sit on?

      It's not foundational Connie. Ideologies are foundational. Liberalism isn't an ideology. Despite what conservatives may say about it.

      The difference between the conservative and the liberal is that the conservative knows he's right. The liberal knows he could be wrong.

      Which of the two do you think is closer to the truth?

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie:

      here is a summary of differences between philosophy and ideology.

      1.Philosophy refers to a pragmatic approach of looking and analyzing life. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs and rules belonging to a particular group or set of people

      2.Philosophy aims at understand the world as it exists whereas ideology is born out of a vision for the future and aims at changing the current state to that particular vision

      3.Philosophy is objective whereas ideology is dogmatic and refuses to participate in any discussion that does not agree with that ideology

      4.Philosophy does not have as much impact as an ideology would have on the world ‘“ for ideology aims at spreading the beliefs and imposing them on the rest of the society irrespective of its relevance

      5.All ideologies have some underlying philosophy but it is not vice versa.

    • William Dugat profile image

      William Dugat 23 months ago from Lufkin, Texas

      adagio- I would suggest you look up the name "nicomp" in the hub search. Read his hub called "A Liberal Called Me a Troll."

    • Alastar Packer profile image

      Alastar Packer 23 months ago from North Carolina

      @ adagio: Just got back from a trip and noticed in places like Beaufort SC that the rebel soldiers battle flags have been removed from the graves to be replaced by official confederate flags that 99 out of a hundred people would have no idea what they were. Be careful what you wish for and get all worked over with hate. There are two sides to everything.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      Alastar, that is terrible. The US government many years ago ruled that the Confederates were American veterans, so removing the flags they fought under is an insult to Veterans.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Alastar Packer. "Be careful what you wish for and get all worked over with hate. There are two sides to everything."

      Hate?? That flag is a symbol of hate. Demanding that it be flown on the grounds of a state capital is evidence of Hate. Waving it in the faces of those that were oppressed under it is evidence of hate. And if there are two sides to everything then it's obvious that both sides can't be right. Both might be wrong, but it's impossible for both to be right. So unless you're a relativist, there is an objective truth to gained.

      I think it's strange to title a Hub "Banning the Confederate Flag is Un-American"...when that flag is Un-American to begin with? I doubt that the Confederate States were concerned with what was "American" since they had already seceded from the Union. They were more concerned with perpetuating the institution of slavery then they were with remaining in the Union of States.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @William Dugat " I would suggest you look up the name "nicomp" in the hub search. Read his hub called "A Liberal Called Me a Troll."

      Why?

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 23 months ago

      ***I think it's strange to title a Hub "Banning the Confederate Flag is Un-American"...when that flag is Un-American to begin with? I doubt that the Confederate States were concerned with what was "American" since they had already seceded from the Union. They were more concerned with perpetuating the institution of slavery then they were with remaining in the Union of States.***

      The flag is not un-American. And yes, the Confederates were concerned with what was "American." Why do you think they were called the Confederate States of America? There are many quotes by prominent Confederates, including President Jefferson Davis, that they were fighting for the Constitution, which contract was broken by the federal government. Besides, since the Confederate veterans were officially considered to be American veterans many years ago, obviously the flag they fought under is an American flag. (For example, Congressional Act of 9 March 1906, U.S. Public Law 810 Approved by 17th Congress 26 February 1929.)

    • Alastar Packer profile image

      Alastar Packer 23 months ago from North Carolina

      I would say your a symbol of hate at the moment. Chow- over and out.

    • Alastar Packer profile image

      Alastar Packer 23 months ago from North Carolina

      Right you are, Connie. Southern blacks and whites have a good special relationship these days. Wonder what some think of the 1913 Gettysburg reunion among both sides where they reconsolidated in peace. The battle flag has been misused through time and that is the real shame of it. The vast majority of blacks and whites in the south have a good relationship and understanding of each other that it may be hard for some others to understand. Were all Americans and have been for a long time..

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "The flag is not un-American"

      We have a flag Connie. It's the American Flag. That's not it. That's a flag representing people that wanted to leave the United States.

      "Why do you think they were called the Confederate States of America?"

      Because they no longer wanted to be part of the United States. That's not American. That's Un-American.

      "Besides, since the Confederate veterans were officially considered to be American veterans many years ago, obviously the flag they fought under is an American flag."

      No Connnie. Those soldiers may have been considered Americans. But the flag they fought under is NOT an American Flag. It's a Confederate Flag. We have ONE American Flag. You're trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. If your narrative doesn't mesh with reality you'll force fit it if you have to. But it still doesn't fit.

      The example you provide a link for states that Confederate soldiers are Americans. However is says no such thing about that flag being an American Flag. You're offering what's called a non sequitur. It's a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. IF it were an American Flag then it would be flying over the nations capital. It isn't even flying over southern state capitals.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Alastar: "I would say your a symbol of hate at the moment. Chow- over and out."

      You would. But...consider the source. And I don't have time for hate. I leave that you people like you. And it's spelled Ciao. Chow is something you eat.

    • Alastar Packer profile image

      Alastar Packer 23 months ago from North Carolina

      You got the message. Good luck to you adagio:)

    • Alastar Packer profile image

      Alastar Packer 23 months ago from North Carolina

      Oh, and since you made it personal, if I had the time to read your... hp book, I would set your numbered points diatribe correct by at least 25%. Why can't you just leave it alone adagio, and say...concentrate on the fact that there are more people in bondage today than ever before and hate some more modern banners?

    • Alastar Packer profile image

      Alastar Packer 23 months ago from North Carolina

      How about the Belgium flag under which King Leopold terrorized into rubber slavery and mass killings the Congolese because he wanted to "join" that European club of potentates round the 1890s in particular, just to name one such monster?

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Alastar: I didn't make this personal. You did with this: "I would say your a symbol of hate at the moment. Chow- over and out"

      So, not only did you start this personal garbage but you spell Ciao wrong and fail live up to your grand exit by returning for more. You just can't be taken at your word can you?

      You then tell me that you would "set my numbered points diatribe in my book correct by 25%...if ONLY you had the time? (Which book? I have two.) Oh well, I'm sure you could present a reasoned argument, if only you had the time for reason. But..I guess we'll all just have to take your word for it right? Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I'll bet you could have done great things in your life...if only you'd had the time. But rest assured...you could have done it.

      "Why can't you just leave it alone adagio, and say...concentrate on the fact that there are more people in bondage today than ever before and hate some more modern banners?"

      I guess it's because I have this thing for the Truth, and of course statements like that one are so far from it, that I can't resist poking holes in them. It is a banner of Hate. An old one that keeps getting revived by those that swim in a pool of hate. I suppose you actually think that tolerance somehow must be extended to the intolerant. You're sadly mistaken on that. There are limits to the attitude of reasonableness’: We should not, for example, tolerate injustice, or murder, or attempts to restrict our freedom. And we need not, everything else being equal, tolerate the intolerant. You can't reason or use logic with a person willing to shoot you as we all saw in Charleston with a young man that took his marching orders from a conservative organization while waving his disgusting banner of hate to let everyone know exactly where he stood. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

      "How about the Belgium flag "

      What about it? I live in America. Not Belgium. My primary concern is about what happens in my country. Intolerance in America is my concern. Not Belgium. I'll leave Belgium to you.

    • Alastar Packer profile image

      Alastar Packer 23 months ago from North Carolina

      Continue on, continue on. Perhaps your right, as I didn't really read your lengthy posts too much. Your obviously a smart and tenacious man with your own point of view. No hard feelings, Adaglio. Adios:)

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 23 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Alastar: That's quite alright. We all have our views on things.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 22 months ago from Pennsylvania

      As a Southerner whose Southern heritage goes back centuries, I find it offensive that people are still trying to resurrect the Confederate flag as the symbol of the South. That war ended, the South rejoined the UNITED States of America, and we should ALL be following the better principles of that union, NOT the declared aims of Jefferson Davis and his bigoted cronies. Please do not waste your time with one-sided history lessons. I am too educated to have my time wasted. All I ask you is one question - How does your selfish need to defend a flag of separatism at the expense of equality for all contribute to the better good for all in America?

      Brian

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 22 months ago from Pennsylvania

      Post Script - I urge everyone to read my HubPages article, "Flying The Confederate Flag," by Brian Gray, and look at the photos I have posted at the bottom of my article as just a small sampling of the countless atrocities committed in the name of bigotry and hate. Then, I want Confederate sympathizers to tell me how they justify those horrible deaths.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 22 months ago

      Hanavee, it's a shame that you think so little of your ancestors. Anyway, "the better principles" of the union died with the end of the Civil War. It's not a union if the states are forced together at gunpoint. Also, where is there "equality for all?" Everyone else's heritage, race, and ethnicity are lauded and promoted, except for the white race, and particularly white Southerners. Trying to destroy traditional Southern culture and history is not "good for all."

      As you can see from the sudden surge in popularity of the battle flag, the Confederate flag has become a symbol of resistance to the tyranny of media political correctness and over-reaching government, not only in the South, but all over the country and even internationally.

      I briefly scrolled through the pictures at the bottom of your article. Dredging up old photos from many years ago has no bearing on this modern issue, and Confederate sympathizers today have no need to "justify" anything except their own actions. I could find many more recent photos of atrocities perpetrated by blacks against whites, that I see almost daily. How can you justify those horrible deaths, that are overlooked and/ or condoned and defended by the media?

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 22 months ago from Pennsylvania

      Connie,

      I do NOT think little of my ancestors, contrary to your misinterpretation of my post. I am proud of my heritage, as all people should be. But just as German citizens can be proud of their ancestry without waving a Nazi flag, the errors of those who espoused Confederacy are nothing to be proud of. Racism is wrong, no matter whether it is a Black person who hates White people, or a White person who hates Blacks, and flying the Confederate flag is just as racist as is flying the flag of the Black Panthers. Neither of these flags stands for inclusion, equality or peace. Wave the flag of war, and all you get is more war.

      Finally, how you can look at those photos and dismiss them as merely photos from the past? Those photos attest to the reality of where we go when hatred is allowed to be glorified. There is no "supreme race," only one Supreme being, and that is God, our Creator, who made us all, and He made no one inferior to the other. We all need to start living and teaching the love of God instead of the hate of man.

      Brian

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 22 months ago

      Hanavee, you are right only one Supreme Being, God.

      I can dismiss the photos as merely "from the past," because that is what they are. (And by the way, there isn't a single Confederate flag in all those pictures. In fact, from at least the early 1900s on, the KKK has been flying the American flag). Whether or not hatred was "allowed to be glorified" back then, we need to move past that, and concentrate on today's issues. It is more than just a flag issue, and the various interpretations that are put on that flag. They are actively trying to erase every aspect of Southern history and culture, all in the name of "anti-racism" or "equality." You'll never have equality when one side is favored over the other, as is currently the case with blacks and other "minorities" being favored over whites.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 22 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      "Everyone else's heritage, race, and ethnicity are lauded and promoted, except for the white race, and particularly white Southerners."

      That's about as racist as anything you've said yet Connie. And don't say it isn't, because you're obviously complaining about how the white race and particularly "white Southerners are NOT being promoted enough. So we have never seen or heard anything from the White Supremacy groups that populate the South especially. Those poor, put upon Whites, who have ruled EVERYTHING and subjected others to slavery and every kind of indignity they can think of....they're being deprived of their "rightful" place in America??

      Look at this: "Trying to destroy traditional Southern culture and history is not "good for all." You know...you're the only ones that bitch about your "culture" and your history as something separate. I've NEVER heard anybody from the North talk about Northern Culture or Northern Pride. You're as divisive as it gets and then you point at somebody like Obama and call him divisive. The only thing about him that's divisive is that he's black. He's guilty of being black.

      You have this "entitlement" mentality that assumes that your race is some kind of free pass to everything, and that is reserved for Whites. You are the beneficiary of the genetic lottery. Good for you. You had nothing to do with that, but congratulations for your good fortune. Your comment screams White Supremacy. So you defend this "southern culture" that enslaved people; denied them basic rights, like education, housing, voting. Even the right to marry who they wanted to marry. Lynched them if they "got uppity". Just exactly how is any of this different from the South African system of Apartheid?

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 22 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      "They are actively trying to erase every aspect of Southern history and culture, all in the name of "anti-racism" or "equality." You'll never have equality when one side is favored over the other, as is currently the case with blacks and other "minorities" being favored over whites."

      Nobody is trying to erase Southern History Connie. It's important to show it as it is, Warts and all. Because of your own insistence on seeing the South as different from the rest of the country, you expose the South to the glare of the light of history which is pretty damn ugly. You still view yourself as "Southern" first and American second. It's probably because your side lost the war. Everything you've written here is a defense for White Supremacy, and a complaint that this institution is no longer considered valid.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 22 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      "You'll never have equality when one side is favored over the other, as is currently the case with blacks and other "minorities" being favored over whites."

      As a "life-long" White person...why is it that I don't share your anxiety? You don't care about equality. What you care about is White Supremacy. Your post shouts it. You feel that blacks and other minorities are "being favored" over whites. That is about as clear an illustration of your own racism as you could come up with. It's pretty hard to be concerned about the plight of the "poor white person", in light of our long history of suppression of those who aren't white. Did you have to bleed for the right to vote or attend a school or eat at a restaurant? No. You didn't. So unless you can make that claim, you don't have a leg to stand on. Whites still rule in America, but those days may not last. Then what?

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 22 months ago from Pennsylvania

      Connie,

      Your wrote:

      "I can dismiss the photos as merely "from the past," because that is what they are. (And by the way, there isn't a single Confederate flag in all those pictures. In fact, from at least the early 1900s on, the KKK has been flying the American flag)."

      You cannot dismiss the photos as merely from the past, then turn right around and say that you want to use a flag from the past. That's blatant hypocrisy. I am a White Southerner who has heard more than his share of fellow White Southerners defend their racist bigotries. Google the name Emmett Tull, and read about the senseless murder of this young Black man in 1955, murdered because some White woman claimed that he "looked" at her. I think it is a shame and a disgrace that any Black person EVER had to hang their heads and avert their eyes lest they accidentally make eye contact with a White person who could have them hanged for it. This was fact for far too long, even in my lifetime, and I remember these atrocities well. You cannot whitewash the truth about the intense racism in the South. And for your record, I have known many who were members in the KKK, and they did then, and still do today, fly the Confederate flag. Further, the reason there are no Confederate flags in any of those photos means absolutely nothing. The people who hanged those innocent people often flew that flag.

      You wrote:

      "Whether or not hatred was "allowed to be glorified" back then, we need to move past that..."

      This is the reason I write against racism, whether it be Blacks who hate Whites, or Whites who hate Blacks, it is ALL wrong and immoral. Racism is against the will of God. We cannot move past the racism of the past if we keep taking symbols of it and waving them in the faces of those who know what it means.

      You wrote:

      " It is more than just a flag issue, and the various interpretations that are put on that flag."

      I disagree. If I wanted to parade around with a Nazi flag, click my heels at attention and do the Nazi salute, all while running around in a Jewish neighborhood, only a fool would ever believe that I was only showing that I was proud of my Germanic ancestry. Symbols of hate have no place in a movement for peace and unity...NONE.

      You wrote:

      " They are actively trying to erase every aspect of Southern history and culture, all in the name of "anti-racism" or "equality." You'll never have equality when one side is favored over the other, as is currently the case with blacks and other "minorities" being favored over whites."

      I sincerely doubt that anyone is trying to erase every aspect of Southern history. In the university I attended, History was still a required subject, especially American History, and there will never be a shortage of history books and documentaries. No one can ever erase history, because it is recorded, and we are supposed to learn from that history by studying the things that were wrong and striving never to repeat those mistakes. You said it yourself, "You will never have equality when one side is favored over the other." As I have repeatedly stated, racism is wrong. Our skin color was not a choice, but what we do with the life that God gave us, that IS a choice. We can work for war, or we can work for peace. No one's race is going to become extinct, and even if the last White person to be born was now living, neither of us would suddenly notice our skin color changing. In fact, according to historians, the cradle of civilization was the Nile, and the skin color there would have been Brown. All of the Earth's skin colors are mutations and evolutionary processes. None of them is superior. God made us all, and it is time that we stopped trying to blame others for any status in life that has become our lot.

      Brian

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 22 months ago

      @Adagio, whites certainly don't rule in America. Besides the obvious black president, the whole media and political correctness machinery constantly castigates whites just for being white, while giving other races and cultures every advantage and promotion. Just because I love my own people makes me racist? That word is a communist invention, and I don't care if you feel that I'm racist just because I don't hate my own race.

      @Hanavee, I just read an article on Washington Post website about how white Southern history and culture must be erased. There was also another article recently calling for the genocide of white Southerners. They have become more and more open about their goals.

      Comaring the Confederate flag to the Nazi flag is a liberal hate-mongering tactic. The current system of censorship and persecution in the US is much more along the lines of Nazism than anything that occurred during the Confederacy's brief history.

      "Symbols of hate have no place in a movement for peace and unity." Just because the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate for you, doesn't mean that it is for everyone. What gives you or the media the right to determine what is a symbol of hate, and ban what you don't like and feel offended by? Why can't we ban rainbow flags, since they are very offensive and hateful to Moslems and Christians?

      "Its time we stop trying to blame others for any status in life..." Yes, that is true. So why blame white Southerners, and their heritage symbols, for the status of blacks today?

      Banning the Confederate flag, hoop skirts, etc. is obviously intended to stir up racial hatred. You can't take sides and expect there to be any unity. Tolerance needs to extend to both blacks and whites, or it isn't tolerance.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 22 months ago from Pennsylvania

      Connie,

      What gives us the right to determine that the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate? Simple...History.

      Brian

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 22 months ago

      Revisionist history, maybe. Like they say, history is written by the conquerors. The Confederate battle flag is no more a symbol of hate than the US flag. Since we've started down the slippery slope, why not ban that one too?

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 22 months ago from Pennsylvania

      Connie,

      Revisionist history? Research the Dixiecrats and their use of the Confederate flag, and let me know what you find out. Pretty intense history there.

      Brian

    • profile image

      big e 22 months ago

      I saw a young black male with a confederate flag on his shirt. Fish hook on his hat.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 22 months ago from Pennsylvania

      Funny, I just can't picture Jesus waving the Confederate flag.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 22 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "Adagio, whites certainly don't rule in America."

      Of course they do Connie. Maybe you should take another look at who makes our laws. It's called Congress. Take a good look at the racial makeup of Congress.

      "Besides the obvious black president, the whole media and political correctness machinery constantly castigates whites just for being white, while giving other races and cultures every advantage and promotion."

      And you think that because we have a black president that this somehow indicates that we have minority rule in this country? We don't have a dictator here. We have a president and he has to deal with a congress, especially in the Senate which has 1 black Senator among 100. Even in the House, whites outnumber minorities. The Speaker is White. The Majority leader in the Senate is White. And you want to tell us that Whites don't rule in America?? What planet are you living on??

      The idea that "the whole media and political correctness machinery constantly castigates whites just for being white, while giving other races and cultures every advantage and promotion." shouts your concern that White Supremacy is under challenge and you don't like it. There is no political correctness machinery in place and the media certainly isn't pushing that. Donald Trump is not appealing to political correctness. He insults every minority in America. And while your at it...can you please tell us what is the difference between being "politically incorrect" and just plain rudeness? How can you tell when somebody is being "politically incorrect" and just being a rude obnoxious bully?

      "Just because I love my own people makes me racist?"

      It illustrates your own sense of us v them. You clearly give your own race the benefit of the doubt while all others receive skepticism.

      "That word is a communist invention, and I don't care if you feel that I'm racist just because I don't hate my own race."

      That's an urban legend promoted by conservatives to deflect the stigma attached. The legend that Leon Trotsky coined the word racist offers a basis for that kind of rhetoric. It seems a silly argument, but they will say something like, "If you use the word racist then you are a bad person like Communist mass-murderer Leon Trotsky, because he invented that word!" Did Trotsky really invent that word? No, apparently not. The work in which Trotsky is supposed to have coined that word was written and published in Russian in 1930.

      The term; pensée raciste (French for “racist thought”) and individualité raciste (“racist individuality”) in the volume of La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto (a periodical championing the cultural and ethnic identity of people in southern France) for the year 1906, precedes Trotsky. Several examples of the French form, raciste, preceding Trotsky's use of the word by decades. But none of that matters. Who coined the term is irrelevant.

      It explains the attitude directed at "others" not of your race. Moreover it means concerned with race. That; illustrated by your own writing, describes you.

      " and I don't care if you feel that I'm racist just because I don't hate my own race"

      ??? What on earth are you talking about? Hating your own race??? That statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

      "Comparing the Confederate flag to the Nazi flag is a liberal hate-mongering tactic."

      Right. Everything is a "liberal tactic". The Confederate Flag is a symbol of a racist would-be nation. That's been long established by the very people that waved it in the 1860's. Maybe you should ask blacks what they think of the Confederate flag. Ask them if it's offensive. They might have some insight on the matter that you don't have.

      "The current system of censorship and persecution in the US is much more along the lines of Nazism than anything that occurred during the Confederacy's brief history."

      What system of censorship and persecution are you talking about? I seem to have missed that. You're comparing the United States today to Nazi Germany? Seriously?? And, you're going to tell us that the Confederacy was a nice benevolent open society that welcomed everybody?

      "Just because the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate for you, doesn't mean that it is for everyone."

      You really don't get this do you? That flag IS a symbol of hate to those that were enslaved under it. You don't give a rats ass about that. But to those people it's a bitter reminder of White Supremacy in this country. Something I'm sure your in favor of. Your argument could just as easily be applied to the Swastika with the claim that just because it's a symbol of hate to some doesn't mean that it is for others, and therefore it should be acceptable to fly on government grounds. Germany doesn't agree with you and that flag is outlawed. They have enough reminders of that period without waving that piece of crap in peoples face.

      " What gives you or the media the right to determine what is a symbol of hate, and ban what you don't like and feel offended by?"

      We don't. The people that were affected by that symbol have the right. The people that were enslaved under that banner, have the right. That flag is not only a symbol of slavery, it's also a symbol of insurrection. It's NOT American. It's Anti-American. It represents a society; not based on "All Men are Created Equal". It's based on Inequality, and the perpetuation of slavery. Something that you obviously believe in.

      " Why can't we ban rainbow flags, since they are very offensive and hateful to Moslems and Christians?"

      Because nobody is being enslaved or tortured under a rainbow flag. Nobody has been lynched or whipped are maimed under a rainbow flag. Nobody has fought a war against the US under a Rainbow flag. Your religious beliefs are not immune to being offended. After all...they're just beliefs. Your homophobia is your problem to deal with.

      "So why blame white Southerners, and their heritage symbols, for the status of blacks today?"

      Because they still hold those same values that they held back then. Conservatives don't change their Conservatism to accommodate others, least of all blacks. They continue to hold the very same views on race that they've always held. And the entire idea of southern heritage is such nonsense. They're the only region of the country that holds themselves as separate from the rest of the country. Nobody ever talks about their Northern heritage, or their western heritage. It's probably because we see ourselves as Americans First. You don't. You're Southern First, and American second.

      "Banning the Confederate flag, hoop skirts, etc. is obviously intended to stir up racial hatred. You can't take sides and expect there to be any unity. Tolerance needs to extend to both blacks and whites, or it isn't tolerance."

      No. It isn't intended to stir up racial hatred. It's intended to expose it and that's the best way to rid ourselves of it. Tolerance is not something that must be extended in the Intolerant. there are limits to the attitude of reasonableness’: You can't argue with a man willing to shoot you as we all saw with Dylann Roof. We should not, for example, tolerate injustice, or murder, or attempts to restrict our freedom. And we need not, everything else being equal, tolerate the intolerant.

      Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

    • profile image

      big E 22 months ago

      I would give anything to be a black male these days. You got so much more protection. Black skin makes you look like a tough SOB.

      what people like connie does not understand is you can protect white people better if you are black. The police could handle black criminals better if they were black. White bosses could get more productivity out of black employees if they were black.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 21 months ago

      @Adagio

      ****”There is no political correctness machinery in place and the media certainly isn't pushing that.”

      You must be living under a rock! There are daily examples of people getting their careers destroyed because they said something that was “politically incorrect,” oftentimes in private. There are a ton of examples of politicians and others suddenly backtracking and taking an opposite stance, rather than face media backlash. The most obvious example of the media political correctness machinery is the sudden banning of the CBF overnight by most of the major companies.

      ****”What system of censorship and persecution are you talking about?”

      Did you even read my article? Banning flags is a big example of censorship. Destroying people’s property and their homes and livelihoods is a form of persecution.

      ****”That flag IS a symbol of hate to those that were enslaved under it.”

      I’m pretty sure after 150 years, no one who was supposedly “enslaved” under the Confederate flag is still alive. And if they are, why aren’t they offended by the US flag, which flew over all the ships bringing slaves to this country?

      ****”Because nobody is being enslaved or tortured under a rainbow flag. Nobody has been lynched or whipped are maimed under a rainbow flag.”

      Tell that to all the Christians who have had their lives and livelihoods destroyed, and had to go into hiding because of death threats, because they won’t participate in something that violates their religion. Tell that to the ones who are arrested and jailed merely for standing up for their faith. That is classic religious persecution. (and no, they aren’t refusing to serve gays. Those people can come in and buy a birthday cake, flowers for their mother, etc, with no problem. They are trying to force Christian bakeries, etc, to participate specifically in gay weddings)

      ****”No. It isn't intended to stir up racial hatred. It's intended to expose it and that's the best way to rid ourselves of it. Tolerance is not something that must be extended in the Intolerant. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

      It’s not tolerance if you only “tolerate” what you agree with. Tolerance by definition is “1.the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.” Calling opposing views and beliefs, and anyone/ anything you don’t like, intolerance, so that you don’t have to tolerate it is just a cheap liberal tactic to justify your hatred and bigotry. The media and the society today that it shapes is anything but tolerant. At least you openly admitted that you are trying to “rid ourselves” of the opposition.

      ****”and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal,”

      Another liberal, Communist propaganda trick is victim-blaming, and blaming inanimate objects, rather than the perpetrators. BTW, that whole Dylann Roof thing was obviously a planned hit to justify destroying Southern heritage. The photos were so obviously photoshopped anyone should be able to see it, and his supposed website was made after the fact. There are other obvious problems with the media story, if you care to look them up.

      @big E, you can always promote yourself as a black male imprisoned in a white body. That seems to be getting pretty common nowadays. Maybe you can get rich and famous when the media gets hold of your story.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 21 months ago from Pennsylvania

      You talk about the American flag as if it stood for slavery. It stood for a country that was trying to promote liberty and justice for all, and as such, still represents those ideals, because everywhere we look throughout history, the better ideals have won, and America has continued to improve on those principles. The Confederate flag always stood for oppression and inequality. Whether there was ever a time when the American flag flew on slave ships is inconsequential, because it still represents the country that banned this abhorrent practice. Never has the Confederate flag stood for liberty and justice for all, and when I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, I pledge allegiance to ONE NATION, not to some bigot separatists who tried to divide this great nation and split this country. The ones with the right ideals won that war, and that war is over, so if you want to wave another flag, then you need to find another country. We already have a flag - it isn't the Russian flag, it isn't the Chinese flag, it's not even the flag of ISIS, as much as they would like to take over. We fly the flag of the UNITED STATES, united under the commonality that ALL of us are created equal. A UNITED AMERICA - love it or leave it!

      Brian

      P.S. Your fantasies about Dylann Roof show some real delusional tendencies.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 21 months ago

      @Hanavee, the US is NOT a "united" nation, in fact it isn't even a nation at all. It is a country, or rather an empire, of many different peoples and cultures. A nation is one people united by a common heritage and culture. Oxford dictionary definition: "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory". There can be no United America any more, because all the various factions want opposite forms of government, and special interests rule. There is certainly no liberty and justice for all, when people are persecuted and jailed for their beliefs if they don't jive with the current "party line." If all people are created equal, then why are special groups allowed to dictate to the majority of the people? The Confederate flag isn't a country flag, and never was. It represents the resistance of the people to oppression and tyranny, it is a flag of limited government and the principles of secession that started this country. (And actually, the South should leave the US!)

      P.S. I have no fantasies about Dylann Roof. I do work with Photoshop a lot, and the blatant mistakes in the photos are glaringly obvious. I thought they were obvious enough that even non-Photoshop users could notice that something didn't "look right," but I guess not. Or maybe people just are too brainwashed and automatically believe everything the media tells them.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 21 months ago from Pennsylvania

      Connie,

      You are right that we are currently not very united. It seems that people are forgetting that we are supposed to pull together instead of pull apart. I believe that we can be a united country, and still have our differences of opinion, but when differences are fanned into hate, that is where we have to stop and collectively work to put out the fires. The best example of fanning prejudice into a collective movement was when Hitler needed to blame Germany's ills on someone, and he picked the Jews. Virtually every argument I hear people use against Blacks was used to demonize Jews, and Hitler fanned the flames of prejudice until the entire country of Germany went up in the flames of bigotry and hate. Millions of people lost their lives in a war that should never have happened, and the leader of that bigotry, Hitler, got off easy. He only paid with his life when he committed suicide. There was no way that he could have been forced to pay money to all those who suffered because of his hate campaign, and to this day, we still see signs of the damage he caused the world.

      So, the Confederate flag is a protest symbol used by White Supremacists to make Blacks the scapegoats, just like Hitler did to the Jews. There is no difference. Hate is hate, no matter what color the flag. If we are ever to fulfill the ideals and dreams of the UNITED States, then we all have to start yelling less and loving more. The alternative is more violence and loss. My mother used to say, you win more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. Two people yelling at each other means war is inevitable. Two people listening to each other means there is hope.

      Brian

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 21 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "There are daily examples of people getting their careers destroyed because they said something that was “politically incorrect,”

      Connie, you're not going to be able to dismiss racist remarks is simply being politically incorrect. What you're doing is hiding behind the notion of political incorrectness as a way of justifying racist or ethnic hate speech. It's going to be called out for what it is. Dropping racial or ethnic slurs is not political incorrectness. Its racist.

      "Banning flags is a big example of censorship. Destroying people’s property and their homes and livelihoods is a form of persecution."

      The flags are banned from the public square. If you want to own one, go for it. But the public square, and that includes public or government buildings, is no place to pit one segment of the population against another. If you can't understand that...then you need dig a little deeper into your preconceptions. And who's property, homes and livelihoods are being destroyed?

      "I’m pretty sure after 150 years, no one who was supposedly “enslaved” under the Confederate flag is still alive."

      What makes you think that there is a time limit on hate? Are you actually that narrow minded to think that the passage of time changes the meaning of that flag? There are people who's ancestors were enslaved under that rag. I doubt there is anybody alive that lived under the Swastika, but that doesn't mean they've forgotten what it meant.

      "Tell that to all the Christians who have had their lives and livelihoods destroyed, and had to go into hiding because of death threats, because they won’t participate in something that violates their religion."

      I'll be happy to. Hey Christians, your lives and livelihoods have not been destroyed because gay people now have the same rights that you have. If your religions can't handle that...you've got the wrong religion. Hows that?? Feel Better? And the woman in Kentucky deserves to go to jail for failure to do her job. She's the County Clerk, not the Minister of the County. And the County building is not a church. She has a choice; issue the license, or quit her job. She's free to think the way she thinks, but she's NOT free to impose that thinking in the capacity of the Clerks Office. It's NOT a sanctuary for her religious beliefs. Separation of Church and State. It's been around from the beginning. She and everyone else should understand that by now.

      "That is classic religious persecution. (and no, they aren’t refusing to serve gays. Those people can come in and buy a birthday cake, flowers for their mother, etc, with no problem. They are trying to force Christian bakeries, etc, to participate specifically in gay weddings)"

      No it isn't. And you'd lose that argument in a courtroom. This bakery nonsense, first of all, is anecdotal. There is no rush to bakeries that I'm aware of. Secondly, if the bakery is licensed to do business in the county or state, it CANNOT refuse to do business with anybody, regardless of their religious beliefs. Suppose their religious beliefs said that they can refuse to serve blacks, or Muslims. Does that mean that discrimination of that sort should be tolerated? If you're open for business, then you're open to everybody. If a gay couple wanted a cake decorated with "death to straights" or something of that nature, then they should take a hike. But that isn't whats happening. They aren't promoting violence or insurrection on a cake. You know that. Everyone knows that.

      "It’s not tolerance if you only “tolerate” what you agree with."

      And you should take that very statement to heart, and practice what you're preaching.

      "Calling opposing views and beliefs, and anyone/ anything you don’t like, intolerance, so that you don’t have to tolerate it is just a cheap liberal tactic to justify your hatred and bigotry."

      Bullshit. Calling out racial intolerance for what is is not a cheap liberal tactic. And there is NO paradox. Your intolerance won't be dismissed. Your hate speech won't be justifiable as politically incorrect. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

      "The media and the society today that it shapes is anything but tolerant. At least you openly admitted that you are trying to “rid ourselves” of the opposition."

      The intolerance you speak of comes from the right. It always has. It was the right (conservatism) that fought for slavery; for Jim Crow, for Segregation. It's the right that opposes gays. It's the right that blocks equal pay for women. It's the right that burned crosses and lynched blacks. And it's the right that tries to deny gays a marriage license. Conservatism has NEVER been tolerant of anybody they considered as the "others". AND, I'm not trying to "rid ourselves" of opposition. Where do you find that I made that statement? What is it with the conservative DNA that makes them create fantasies as if they're real?? What I've said all along is that we need NOT tolerate intolerance.

      "Another liberal, Communist propaganda trick is victim-blaming, and blaming inanimate objects, rather than the perpetrators."

      More conservative bullshit. Don't you ever get tired of wading in that cesspool of nonsense?

      "BTW, that whole Dylann Roof thing was obviously a planned hit to justify destroying Southern heritage"

      ??? A planned hit? Well, yeah, it was planned by Roof, a confederate flag waving racist douchebag that got his marching orders from the Conservative Citizens Council. Do you think that they were looking to destroy Southern Heritage? And WTF is Southern Heritage anyway? I suspect you're about to tell me that Roof was a "liberal opperative" being used by the commie left to destroy the Southern Heritage and discredit the Confederate Flag. You aren't really going to go there are you?

      "The photos were so obviously photoshopped anyone should be able to see it, and his supposed website was made after the fact."

      I don't know where you're going with this but, don't go stupid ok? Roof is a right wingnut and a racist. Don't ever tell me or anybody what you think is "obvious". Do you have some proof that supports your "obvious" claim? Yes or no? I suspect you don't. What you do have is an ideological viewpoint that refuses to allow you to see the real world as it is. Roof is a Racist Conservative Killer that believes in what the Confederate Flag is about. He believes in the flags of Rhodesia, and Apartheid South Afrika. And he believed in killing blacks. He's all yours. There isn't a liberal bone in his body. And that's a fact. Deal with it.

      "@big E, you can always promote yourself as a black male imprisoned in a white body. That seems to be getting pretty common nowadays. Maybe you can get rich and famous when the media gets hold of your story."

      I don't know who big E is, but you suggestion is more racist bullshit. I'm white, but that doesn't mean that I can't recognized when whites are acting like A-holes. I don't give them a pass because they're white. You had nothing to do with your race, and neither did I. It was all part of the genetic lottery. So don't act like you deserve anything special because you happen to be white. You don't. I'm sure that will upset your lily white southern belle attitude, but tough shit. That's life. Deal with it.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 21 months ago from Pennsylvania

      Adagio,

      A lot of good points. I'd have to give you some hearty amens for most of them. And I couldn't agree with you more in regards to the county clerk in Kentucky who thinks the government job she has is a pulpit for her religious views. It isn't a church, it is a clerk's office...separation of Church and State must have been lost on her.

      Brian

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 21 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "the US is NOT a "united" nation, in fact it isn't even a nation at all. It is a country, or rather an empire, of many different peoples and cultures."

      Then should we scrap the pledge? "And to the Republic, for which it stands: One Nation, (under God) indivisable, with liberty and justice for all." Might as well. It was written by a socialist. Hear that thud? It's the sound of your argument falling flat.

      "There can be no United America any more, because all the various factions want opposite forms of government, and special interests rule."

      Well then, congrats. You got exactly what you wanted. Destroy the United States. You had a civil war, which you lost, but that hasn't stopped you from trying to tear the country apart on racial grounds.

      "There is certainly no liberty and justice for all, when people are persecuted and jailed for their beliefs if they don't jive with the current "party line."

      That's not true. You can have whatever beliefs you choose to have. That right is absolute. What isn't absolute is assuming that you can act on those beliefs. Cantwell v Connecticut. You may have a religious belief that says that human sacrifice is necessary, but you're not going to be able to hide behind Free Exercise of your religion when facing a murder charge. Nor can you take your religious beliefs into a government office and inject them into the policies of the United States. Your religious views do not "trump" the constitution of the US. Why that's so hard for Conservatives to understand is beyond me or anybody with any degree of understanding of the constitution. Mike Huckabee, Jindal, Cruz ( who should know better with his knowledge of constitutional law) and the others are simply pandering to the low hanging fruit.

      "The Confederate flag isn't a country flag, and never was. It represents the resistance of the people to oppression and tyranny, it is a flag of limited government and the principles of secession that started this country. (And actually, the South should leave the US!)"

      That battle flag wasn't the official flag of the CSA. But they fought under it. They rallied to it. It represented the Confederacy on the battlefield. That's more than enough. I guarantee you that when the troops were on the field, they knew which flag stood for which army. As for the South leaving the US...I doubt that you'd get much opposition today. Most people would say good riddance to the constant whining and racist bullshit coming out of Dixie. Of course you'd have to give up every military base in the South, and you'd be left on your own when hurricanes and tornado's flatten you. You need the rest of the country more then we need you. You're economy would be destroyed. Of course, you could always go back to cotton, but with no slaves around you'd have no cheap labor. Good luck with that, but don't ever tell us that your a true American. You aren't.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 21 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Brian. Every point you've made is spot on. Connie is wrapped tightly into her ideology. It's her own personal straight jacket. I think it's important to exercise critical thinking at all times, and that means you have to direct it at yourself more often than not. I don't "stick up" for the white race because I'm white. I can criticize it openly when I think it's off the rails and being stupid. And for the most part it is. If we could ever get past this racial hangup, we could do almost anything as a nation. Your race is not something that you can do anything about. It's the genetic lottery. Your religion is matter of choice. You choose to be a Baptist or a Evangelical, or a Catholic or even a Jew or Muslim. They're all just ideas about God. They can't all be right. So somebody must be wrong. In fact, they might all be wrong. You make choices and hopefully you're capable of recognizing that you might actually be wrong about a few things. It's called fallibalism. I know that I could be wrong about a lot of things. But when I find that I am, I correct the mistake instead of doubling down on it to reaffirm some belief that's under critical fire. There's this "thing", this attitude that says "I have to stay true to my beliefs because they can't be wrong". Well yes they can. We're all fallible. We're prone to mistake. And our ideas all come from other fallible men that were prone to error. All ideologies are a product of fallible thinking, and you can't create in infallible idea from a fallible source. That includes RELIGION as well, because religion is just another idea. Some people believe it others don't and believe something else. So...lets all fight over which one is right, when they could both be wrong. We do have a Civil War going on in this country and have had it for some time. It's a war between Rationality, and Irrationality. I believe Rationality is still winning but it's under constant attack from irrationality. Rationality is what elected Obama. Irrationality is what is supporting Trump.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 21 months ago

      @adagio, we might as well scrap the pledge, since it's meaningless. And how can you say rationality elected Obama, when he was only elected because of his race, regardless of what his stance on the issues was?

      ****"You can have whatever beliefs you choose to have. That right is absolute. What isn't absolute is assuming that you can act on those beliefs. Cantwell v Connecticut. You may have a religious belief that says that human sacrifice is necessary, but you're not going to be able to hide behind Free Exercise of your religion when facing a murder charge."

      That is total BS, and a typical Marxist excuse to gut the Constitution and render rights obsolete. What good are beliefs if they don't result in practical application in your daily life? Your example is irrelevant, because obviously a person's right to life trumps another person's right to liberty. But the First Amendment guarantees the "free exercise" of religion, not just the right to privately believe whatever you want.

      ****As for the South leaving the US...I doubt that you'd get much opposition today. Most people would say good riddance to the constant whining and racist bullshit coming out of Dixie.

      Actually, there is a lot of opposition to Southern Secession. And the whining isn't coming out of Dixie, at least not by Southerners. It's coming from all the people that are offended by everything, and instead of practicing tolerance, get the government to destroy the opposition.

      As far as getting past the racial hangup, that is impossible when one race is promoted over another. When one culture is despised, and allowed to be attacked with impunity, there is no equality.

      Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. If you can't see past your ingrained Cultural Marxism straightjacket, and your hatred of the South, of Christianity, and the white race (which by the way, founded this country), this is just a waste of time.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 21 months ago from Pennsylvania

      Connie wrote:

      "As far as getting past the racial hangup, that is impossible when one race is promoted over another. When one culture is despised, and allowed to be attacked with impunity, there is no equality."

      Well said. The White race is promoted over the Black race, the Black culture is despised by White racists, and Blacks are attacked by racist Whites with impunity...thus, just like you wrote, there is no equality. Sad.

      Brian

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 21 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "And how can you say rationality elected Obama, when he was only elected because of his race, regardless of what his stance on the issues was?"

      Well done Connie. You've just confirmed your own racism by making race the issue in Obama's election. He was elected twice Connie. I might be willing to give you the novelty of the first election of a black president in 08. But not the second time. Race is the issue for YOU.

      "That is total BS, and a typical Marxist excuse to gut the Constitution and render rights obsolete."

      No Connie. That's the Supreme Court in Cantwell v Connecticut. “Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be”. Cantwell v. Connecticut. Being true to form for any conservative, you actually believe that any rational argument and decision by SCOTUS is a Marxist conspiracy.

      "What good are beliefs if they don't result in practical application in your daily life?"

      What good are beliefs that aren't true? Which is more important to you; your beliefs, or the Truth? And what good are beliefs that don't correspond to Truth? What kind of beliefs are those? If there was a direct conflict between your beliefs and the Truth, which would you opt for? Would you continue to believe something that you knew wasn't true, or would you dump the belief in favor of Truth? Why would anybody hold onto beliefs they knew were false?

      "Your example is irrelevant, because obviously a person's right to life trumps another person's right to liberty."

      No it doesn't. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness are all fundamental to our principles in equal measure. Each one is dependent on the other to have any meaning.

      "But the First Amendment guarantees the "free exercise" of religion, not just the right to privately believe whatever you want."

      Nope. You're wrong again. You don't understand the Amendment. I provided you a very basic example. If your religion believes in human or animal sacrifice, you are not able to exercise that belief. You can't escape a murder charge by hiding behind the Free Ex clause of the first Amendment. You have the right to believe that, and that is absolute. But you do NOT have the right to practice that belief. Free Ex is NOT absolute. There's nothing Marxist about it. It's basic logic and reason.

      A perfect example of this is taking place in Kentucky with Kim Davis. She can believe anything she wants, but in her capacity as a government employee she has NO right to deny others a marriage license because of her religious beliefs. Her beliefs have nothing to do with the job and she is not permitted to make determinations based on her religious beliefs. They're irrelevant. That's why she's in jail, and no accommodations are going to be made to compromise the separation of church and State. We aren't going to change the Constitution to accommodate Kim Davis. She's working in a government office. Not a church.

      An overlooked aspect of the free exercise clause which is a blind spot among Republicans, and especially Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and others, is that it looks back to the establishment clause for its definition of "religion." The establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of "religion," while the free exercise clause says that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise "thereof." Logically, the word "thereof" must have the same content as the object to which it refers. Accordingly, what counts as "religion" for one clause must count as "religion" for the other.

      Critically, the free exercise clause makes no sense unless the word "religion" is read to encompass more than a church, denomination, or sect. On the contrary, it is common ground that the state abridges free exercise when it interferes with only small parts of an individual's religious practice. The state, for example, abridges free exercise when it tells student they cannot pray during school, even if it allows them complete freedom to practice all other aspects of their faith. Similarly, the state cannot tell a church it can't erect a nativity scene on its front lawn even if the church is otherwise left free to use its property as it wishes. Private prayer and nativity scenes are protected by the free exercise clause despite the fact that neither of these practices constitute religions in and of themselves.

      If prayer and nativity scenes count as "religion" for the purposes of the free exercise clause, they must also count as "religion" for the purposes of the establishment clause. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a student she cannot pray, so to does it establish religion when it requires prayer to be said in the schools. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a church it can't set up a nativity scene, so to does it establish religion when it sets up a nativity scene on government land at public expense. The state does not cross the line to establishment only when it goes to the trouble and expense of setting up a state church; it crosses that line when it sets up any religious practice that constitutes "religion" for the purposes of free exercise. To the extent that accomodationists want to read the "thereof" in the free exercise clause broadly, they must also accept a broad reading of "religion" in the establishment clause.

      What Kim Davis is doing in Kentucky, is establishing religion. She can't make the claim of Free Exercise without Establishing religion at the same time. Marriage licenses aren't a religion. They're a license issued by the county. However, since she is making it a religious issue for the purposes of Free Exercise, she must also accept the inescapable FACT that she's also making it a religious issue for the purposes of Establishment, and the Constitution in the first Amendment is clear on that. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The last time I checked, Kentucky was a state under the US Constitution and it's laws are the law of the land which includes Kentucky. She hasn't got a leg to stand on and neither do you on this subject. Believe whatever you want Connie, but don't think that gives you a free pass to act on that belief.

      "Actually, there is a lot of opposition to Southern Secession."

      Maybe in the South among the more rational minded people. The City of Austin Texas wants to secede from the State. Can't really blame them.

      "It's coming from all the people that are offended by everything, and instead of practicing tolerance, get the government to destroy the opposition."

      If you want out of the country, then just leave. You won't be missed at all. But this is the UNITED STATES, and it's going to stay that way, with you or without you.

      "As far as getting past the racial hangup, that is impossible when one race is promoted over another. When one culture is despised, and allowed to be attacked with impunity, there is no equality."

      That's been the case from the very beginning. The White race was always promoted over all others. White Supremacy. White Power. I'm sure you've heard those words before. I've never heard of Black Supremacy or Asian Supremacy or Latino Supremacy. Have you? You're right about one race being promoted over all the others, but you don't seem to understand that it's ALWAYS been the white race promoted over all the others. You see men in white robes and hoods and white power, and confederate flags. You don't see blacks doing that. You don't see Hispanics or Asians doing that. So you're right about the promotion of one race over all others. You just don't seem to understand that that race is the White Race. Your sense of White entitlement is truly astonishing.

    • profile image

      Big E 21 months ago

      Black skin has advantages.

      Makes you look stronger and more masculine. Makes you look younger. Reduces your chances of getting robbed. Is good for protection nobody will mess with a black man. Ladies love black men. Got more flexibility on what you can and can not say.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 21 months ago

      @Hanavee,

      ****"The White race is promoted over the Black race, the Black culture is despised by White racists, and Blacks are attacked by racist Whites with impunity."

      Can you provide examples? Everything I hear about on the news is the exact opposite. If a white kills a black, even in self-defense, it's considered a hate crime, but if a black kills a white, it's not. Blacks are the ones that despise white culture; in fact, I read an article by a prominent black businessman where he described this very thing. He said that even his own family ridiculed him for being "too white." While many white teens dress and act like blacks, and no one criticizes them for being "too black." Affirmative action, and similar measures ensure that blacks and minorities will be hired over whites, to reach quotas, whether or not they are qualified. Even one of the Supreme Court "Justices," openly discriminated against whites who passed the firefighters test, to hire blacks that didn't. There have been many more black on white murders than the victims of Dylann Roof, yet he is made out to be the devil incarnate, while the black on white murders are swept under the rug. If the white race was promoted over the black race, then why is white culture and history being suppressed? (While there are plenty of blacks that fly the Confederate flag, it's still a predominantly white flag). Why are blacks and others allowed to victimize whites for flying the CBF, destroying properties and injuring people without getting punished for it, but rather encouraged by the media? If black culture is despised by white "racists," maybe its because of all the black looting rioting and violence. There is no privilege to being white in today's society. Whites have to work hard for everything they achieve, with roadblocks put in their way to keep them back, while blacks have everything handed to them, and still complain about it not being enough. Perhaps if blacks got rid of the victim mentality, and took responsibility for their own lives and their own actions, it would go far toward real equality in the country.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 21 months ago from Pennsylvania

      Connie,

      I once heard a Black preacher say to the congregation in a Black Presbyterian church, "Not everything that is Black is good, not everything that is White is bad." Point being, we will have bad Whites, and we will have bad Blacks. That does NOT give us the right, therefore, to lump everyone in with the bad. There are White people and Black people who are trying to make this world a better place, and the racists on both sides of the color barrier are trying real hard to make sure they don't succeed. Yes, we have problems with inner-city poverty, and one of those problems is poor Blacks denied the opportunities to get ahead, so they end up selling drugs to the White drug users in upper society who think their drug use is cool. Here we have a blatant example of Whites abusing drugs, fueling an economy for the inner-city poor Black men who can't find work and end up giving up what scruples they had left and start running drugs. The United States is the biggest importer of illegal drugs in the world, and who consumes the most of it? Upper class Whites. Yes, we have a lot of problems in this world, but none of them are solved by agitating one segment of the population and making them the scapegoats for all the ills that plague us. Hitler did that with the Jews, and we see what that brought. No, we don't need more repeats of history. We are supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them. Leave the hate in the past. Make this a new day where we all work together for the betterment of our world. Jacob Bok once said, "Make ye this world a better place for your having been here." Making this world a better place should not mean having to go to war. Are there Blacks helping to create the problems? Certainly. Have I ever faced Black racism? Yes. Was their racism justified when it was directed at me? No. Did it mean that I had to become racist because of those incidents? No. It means that I have to find a way to convert racists into peacemakers, because the only alternative is death and loss for everyone.

      We will never have peace as long as we simply resort to throwing insults at one another. When that happens, the person with the biggest weapon wins...for the moment. War, or peace. You choose. Your efforts for the good, or your resignation to the worse in mankind, will make all the difference.

      Brian

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 21 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: "Can you provide examples? Everything I hear about on the news is the exact opposite"

      That's pretty easy Connie. Take a look a the photo's of the past 44 Presidents. Notice anything different about #44? How about this; Did you or any member of your family EVER have to shed blood to vote? Were you ever threatened for trying to register to vote? to attend a school. To eat in a restaurant? Were you ever denied access to a hotel because you're white? Were you ever denied access to a public swimming pool? Did you ever have a cross burned on your front lawn? Was anybody in your family ever lynched or killed for talking to a black woman?

      " If a white kills a black, even in self-defense, it's considered a hate crime, but if a black kills a white, it's not."

      Sucks doesn't it. Now you know what it's like to be black. You no longer have the benefit of the doubt. After about 250 years of assuming the black guy is always guilty and not even bothering with a trial before you take him out and string him up, the shoe is on the other foot, and you don't like it. If you weren't so self-centered and consumed by your sense of white entitlement you might actually begin to learn something.

      "Blacks are the ones that despise white culture; in fact, I read an article by a prominent black businessman where he described this very thing."

      Why wouldn't they? Do you think that Jews will ever forget the Holocaust? What makes you think that blacks will EVER forget that Whites enslaved them. Beat them. Whipped them. Raped them. Lynched them. And then after a war freed them, they instituted Jim Crow to deny them access to any part of the American economy. They denied them education. The right to vote, even though the 15th Amendment gave blacks that right. They enforced segregation of the blacks. And you think that Blacks are going to simply "forget" all of this? Like you can just "flip" a switch and all the pain is gone? People like you were willing to fight a war to preserve their precious institution of White Supremacy. The Articles of Secession from Texas state clearly that they will NEVER accept black equality and one thing we know about conservatism is that they always fight to preserve their institutions and values. They don't compromise them under any circumstances. You're a conservative. You know that. Are you willing to compromise your principles? No. Of course not. It's part of your ideology and the ideology can't be wrong. It's just like a religion to you. Look at Texas:

      "She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

      "the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

      "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

      "that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States. "

      Scars always heal Connie; but they never really go away. Didn't you know that?

      "There have been many more black on white murders than the victims of Dylann Roof, yet he is made out to be the devil incarnate."

      You're actually defending Dylann Roof?? Why am I not surprised? You say there are many more black on white murders than the victims of Roof. I can give you scores of examples of Whites killing blacks. Would you like me to do that? There's documented history of it going back to the time just after Reconstruction about 1880 through 1965. He killed 9 people because they were black. Name a black person that mass murdered a bunch of whites for being white. You seem to know this to be true. Tell me their names. Give me at least one black that mass murdered whites for being white. Certainly you can do that. Like most conservatives you exaggerate everything. You deal in hyperbole. Every aspect of the conservative world is over the top exaggeration.

      "If the white race was promoted over the black race, then why is white culture and history being suppressed? "

      It's not. I'm white and I can say without hesitation that what you're claiming is Bullshit. White history is being suppressed??? Oh shit. White History IS history. And that history is all about the promotion of the White Race at the expense of all others. Once again your conservative exaggerated claims fall flat.

      " If black culture is despised by white "racists," maybe its because of all the black looting rioting and violence"

      Maybe it's because they refuse to lay down and take your crap anymore. And being racists, you can't stand the fact that they won't step aside for you anymore. They don't ask for their rights. They demand them, and you can't stand that. And if you try to block them, they will take action. That shit doesn't fly anymore. Those days are gone. You complain but you ignore the fact that people like you did more than rioting. You actually launched a War that cost over 600,000 lives. And for what?? To preserve your rancid disgusting White Supremacist ideology, and then you have the audacity to pretend to be Christians after committing some of the most sadistic methods of torture ever devised and inflicting it on a race of people that refused to kiss your lily white ass. What a bunch of hypocrites.

      "There is no privilege to being white in today's society. Whites have to work hard for everything they achieve, with roadblocks put in their way to keep them back, while blacks have everything handed to them, and still complain about it not being enough. Perhaps if blacks got rid of the victim mentality, and took responsibility for their own lives and their own actions, it would go far toward real equality in the country."

      Victim mentality??? Do you even read what you write?? You're portraying yourself as the victim. You're the one that's being abused.

      Look at what you write: "Whites have to work hard for everything they achieve, with roadblocks put in their way to keep them back, while blacks have everything handed to them, and still complain about it not being enough". Blacks are being promoted and whites get nothing. Boo hoo. Victim. That's exactly how you portray yourself. My God, do you listen to yourself?? All you write about is how abused whites are. And you talk about blacks having a "victim mentality"?

      Connie, you're a racist. Ok? We all know that by now. Go wave your confederate flag, and put on your robes and hood and burn a cross. We've seen your act before and it's become stale.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 21 months ago

      @adagio, I said I wasn't going to argue with you any more, but when you outright lie, I have to respond. I am not defending Dylann Roof. What he did was certainly wrong. I'm only pointing out the media bias. I can't name right off any black mass murderers. But does it really matter to the victims if they were killed en masse, or one at a time? They are still just as dead.

      I'm not portraying myself as a victim. I'm just stating a fact. Whites are used to working for what they want and need, not looking to government to rig the system for them.

      ****"They don't ask for their rights. They demand them, and you can't stand that. And if you try to block them, they will take action."

      So you defend looting, rioting and destroying people's property (mostly black property, btw). The city apparatus of Baltimore and most other major cities is almost entirely black. How are they getting back at whites whites hen they are hurting themselves? Anyway, what rights are they fighting for? The right to be a thug and not get punished for it?

      ****What makes you think that blacks will EVER forget that Whites enslaved them.

      Like I said, victim mentality. At some point in history, every race and ethnic group was enslaved by some other group. Blacks enslaved other blacks and whites for centuries before the US even existed. Most people move on, and address present day issues. If whites were so evil in the past, than blacks are just as evil now, for "getting back at whitey" and doing the same stuff they condemn in white racists. Or do you think the Jews should build gas chambers and have a German holocaust to "heal the pain?"

      You don't have to tell me I'm racist. According to the media, all whites are inherently racist. Even though you think enough white guilt and pandering to blacks makes you not a racist, you still are. It's genetic, and can't be overcome.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 21 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: I haven't lied about anything.

      "I can't name right off any black mass murderers. But does it really matter to the victims if they were killed en masse, or one at a time? They are still just as dead."

      I didn't think so. And yeah, it matters. If you're going to make an issue over mass murderers and compare these "so-called" victims of black on white mass murder, then you need to present evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, it's Bullshit. We know about Roof. We can name him. We've all seen him. But despite your claims, you can't name one instance to support what you're saying.

      "I'm not portraying myself as a victim."

      Of course you are.

      1."If a white kills a black, even in self-defense, it's considered a hate crime, but if a black kills a white, it's not."

      2."" Affirmative action, and similar measures ensure that blacks and minorities will be hired over whites, to reach quotas, whether or not they are qualified.

      3." Even one of the Supreme Court "Justices," openly discriminated against whites who passed the firefighters test, to hire blacks that didn't."

      4." There have been many more black on white murders than the victims of Dylann Roof, yet he is made out to be the devil incarnate, while the black on white murders are swept under the rug. "

      5."Whites have to work hard for everything they achieve, with roadblocks put in their way to keep them back, while blacks have everything handed to them, and still complain about it not being enough. "

      6."Then why did Walmart discriminate against the person who ordered a Confederate flag cake?"

      I could go on, but the point is pretty clear. Everything you write is about how abused Whites are. How unfair things are for White people. Right. Poor poor White people. They've had it so rough in America. Strange that I don't feel that way at all.

      "Whites are used to working for what they want and need, not looking to government to rig the system for them."

      What you fail to recognize is that throughout the entire history of this country, Whites have been in control of the economy. They've controlled business. They've controlled the school system. They've controlled who gets hired and who gets fired. And what you object to is that blacks and other minorities turn to the government to enforce their rights when whites try to block them or deny them in any way. Is your memory that short that you've forgotten all about segregation? When the Justice Dept. steps in to enforce civil rights, you call it rigging the system, when in fact it's always been whites that have stood in the way of civil rights for everyone. Again, it's your racist idea of White Entitlement. Any attempt to level the playing field is seen by you as "rigging the system".

      "So you defend looting, rioting and destroying people's property (mostly black property, btw)."

      Nope. But do you defend attacking blacks when they marched across the Edmund Pettis Bridge? Or turning dogs and fire hoses on peaceful demonstrators in Birmingham? Do you defend cops that kill unarmed black men and then plant evidence next to the body like in South Carolina? How about choking a man to death caught on video and shown as a snuff film on national TV without any indictments. If I were black, I'd be pretty damn pissed off. How about the killing of another unarmed black in Baltimore. And I bet you thought Trayvon Martin was a "thug" and got what he deserved at the hands of George Zimmerman.

      "Anyway, what rights are they fighting for? The right to be a thug and not get punished for it?"

      Ahhh.."thug". The new "N" Word. Not surprised that you'd toss that out. More Dog Whistles. How about the right to live without being under attack at the hands of the police for the crime of walking while being black.

      "Like I said, victim mentality. "

      Do Jews have a victim mentality? Like I said, Connie; Scars always heal but they never really go away. That kind of shit stays with you. You wouldn't know because you've never been on the receiving end of that kind of crap. And you have no sense of empathy for others, so you can't begin to grasp any of it. So you dismiss it all as "victim mentality". Of course you could also look at it this way; That there is a deep and well deserved distrust of White people, and whites have earned that distrust. The Racist Mentality that has existed in this country forever is still here. You're an example of it, and blacks know it. Hell, I'm white and I can see it.

      "Blacks enslaved other blacks and whites for centuries before the US even existed."

      In logic that's called a Tu Quoque argument. I doubt that you know what that means. The tu quoque fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because someone else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it. This fallacy is classically committed by children who, when told off, respond with “So and so did it too”, with the implied conclusion that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever it is that they have done. This is a fallacy because it could be that both children are in the wrong, and because, as we were all taught, two wrongs don’t make a right. So...don't attempt to justify slavery here because of what may have taken place some place else. We're supposed to be better than that. American Exceptionalism remember? We aren't like other places. We're Better than that.

      "Most people move on, and address present day issues. "

      That's very easy for you to say, since you have no history of being on the receiving end of that kind of thing. And the Jews have a saying; "Never Again". What do you think they mean by that? It's not victimhood. It's recognizing that they'll never allow that kind of thing to happen again. Blacks have certainly "moved on" but they'll never forget what happened. It's a part of their history and the history of this country.

      " If whites were so evil in the past, than blacks are just as evil now, for "getting back at whitey" and doing the same stuff they condemn in white racists."

      Really? I don't see any whites in chains and being whipped or lynched by blacks. Blacks were not just lynched, they were burned alive, castrated, maimed, dismembered. At one lynching in Texas they roasted a young black man over a slow burning fire, dangling him right above it, then they chopped off his fingers and sold them as souvenirs to the crowd of about 14,000. There are pictures if you'd like to see themThey then castrated him before he finally died after two hours of torture. When it comes to sadistic behavior, we could teach ISIS what real torture looks like. So...can you provide us with some examples of blacks lynching, castrating, burning, mutilating White men women and children for the amusement of a black crowd? No Connie. Blacks are NOT as "evil". There is no moral equivalence here. The first step in ridding yourself of your racism, is to acknowledge what took place. If you can't do that, then you're left trying to defend shit that is defenseless. The problem with you is that you don't want to rid yourself of your racism. You embrace it. It's part of your "southern heritage", and we all know that you're a Southerner first, and an American second.

      "Or do you think the Jews should build gas chambers and have a German holocaust to "heal the pain?"

      Nope. But they remember and they aren't about to let those kind of racist policies get a foothold in government. That's why Jews tend to vote Democratic. Republicans are Conservatives and conservatism has a long history of racial prejudice.

      "You don't have to tell me I'm racist. According to the media, all whites are inherently racist."

      What media is that? You talk about the "media" as though it speaks with one voice. I've never heard any unified position by "the media" that all whites are racist. Where do you come up with this garbage? Must be the same place where you found that black on white mass murder takes place more often than what Roof had done.

      "Even though you think enough white guilt and pandering to blacks makes you not a racist, you still are. It's genetic, and can't be overcome."

      Demonstrate the truth of what you just said. It's genetic??You're trying to justify racism. It's genetic. LOL.

    • profile image

      Big E 21 months ago

      Adagio4639,

      If the white man changes his skin color and appearance to black he is out of the doghouse for slavery.

      If a white couple wanted to have kids all they have do is use a black mans sperm and the baby will be black. You could either have the white lady make love with a black man or ask a black friend for a sperm sample or go to the hospital and ask for a black sample.

      Obamas mama was a white lady. Just as guilty of being white as I am. But all she had to do was let a black man get on top of her for 5 minutes and that baby is now not guilty. Black skin will wash away the white mans past injustices.

      If I ever have a son he will be protected by black skin.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 21 months ago

      @Adagio ****“I haven't lied about anything.”

      You lied when you said I defended Dylann Roof. Pointing out double standards doesn't imply agreeing with either side.

      ****“And yeah, it matters. If you're going to make an issue over mass murderers and compare these "so-called" victims of black on white mass murder, then you need to present evidence to support your claim.”

      You and your fellow liberals are making an issue over mass murderers. Murder is murder, whether the perp kills one person at a time or a bunch at once. So no, it doesn't matter to the dead victims whether they were murdered alone, or in a group. They are still dead. And I think hanging's too good for any mass murderer or serial killer, no matter what their race, and especially the government patsies.

      If you want examples of black mass murderers/ serial killers, here's a couple: John Allen Muhammed, the Beltway sniper, and Aaron Alexis, the Navy yard shooter. Mother Jones has a list, but I didn't have time to research everything.

      **** “What you fail to recognize is that throughout the entire history of this country, Whites have been in control of the economy. They've controlled business. They've controlled the school system.”

      That's not surprising in a white-founded country. I'm sure in Japan, the Japanese control the economy, education and business; in Uganda the Ugandans do, in Tonga, the Tongans do, etc.

      **** “What media is that?”

      OK, maybe I misspoke when I said that all whites are racist according to “the media.” I should have said educators and the media.

      Article in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/jul/03/rac...

      Another media source: http://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/post/w...

      Here's an excerpt from Sohrab Ahmari’s interview with Greg Lukianoff in the Wall Street Journal:

      “Consider the University of Delaware, which in fall 2007 instituted an ideological orientation for freshmen…Students were taught in group sessions that the term racist ‘applies to all white people’ while ‘people of color cannot be racists.’”

      Duke University professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva also said that all whites are racist, in a lecture at Dartmouth College.

      **** “So...can you provide us with some examples of blacks lynching, castrating, burning, mutilating White men women and children for the amusement of a black crowd?”

      Why should I? I'm not going to do the same thing that you've been doing, castigating a race of people for things that some members of the race have done in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right. Murder is just as wrong no matter who does it. However, if you would like an example, here's one from Genocide Watch. This is current, not old news from decades ago.

      http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

      http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/south-africa-white-g...

      **** “The tu quoque fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because someone else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it.”

      Nowhere did I say that there was nothing wrong with it. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, in blaming only whites for something that all races and cultures have done.

      **** “That's very easy for you to say, since you have no history of being on the receiving end of that kind of thing.”

      That is not true at all. I'm Catholic, and Catholics were persecuted and thrown into concentration camps by the Nazis, along with the Jews. But I can look at a swastika without getting a panic attack. In fact, as a coin and stamp collector, I've bought and sold NS German coins and stamps. (Not to mention how often Catholics were tortured and killed over the centuries in various countries).

      Your white guilt has taken you to extremes. While people like Hanavee truly want to see real equality and racial harmony from both sides, you can't see beyond your views of the past, and "getting even with whitey". That doesn't solve anything.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      adagio4639 21 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @Connie: “You lied when you said I defended Dylann Roof. Pointing out double standards doesn't imply agreeing with either side.”

      That’s not a lie Connie. You obviously don’t understand what a lie is. A lie is a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth, in order to promote a false narrative. It’s an untrue statement intended to deceive. It’s a statement that is known or intended to be misleading inaccurate or false. I said you were defending Roof, and I based that on your continued attempt to dismiss what he did, and try to turn it into a racist political rant. That’s an opinion that I’ve drawn based upon your own words. You said Roof is made out to be the Devil when black mass murderers that kill whites are ignored. You’re clearly attempting to draw a moral equivalence where none should be offered. Rather than simply admit that what Roof did was an atrocity, you feel a need to draw a comparison which minimizes the effects of Roofs crime. And on top of that, you couldn’t even find one example to back up your claims.

      “You and your fellow liberals are making an issue over mass murderers. Murder is murder, whether the perp kills one person at a time or a bunch at once. So no, it doesn't matter to the dead victims whether they were murdered alone, or in a group. They are still dead.”

      Clearly history doesn’t agree with you. Hitler has a much different place in our minds than a guy that kills somebody in a gas station robbery. Adam Lanza is a name we’ll remember for the consequences of his act. Killing 20 six year olds will do that for you. What Hitler did, what Adam Lanza did has far reaching and lasting effect on our consciousness. The scale of their atrocity is recognized. So too is that of Dylann Roof. In his case, he singled out blacks for the crime of being black. He’s a racist murderer and you should condemn him for the shame he brings down upon the White race, instead of looking for some moral equivalence in a reverse situation that might justify what he did.

      “If you want examples of black mass murderers/ serial killers, here's a couple: John Allen Muhammed, the Beltway sniper, and Aaron Alexis, the Navy yard shooter. Mother Jones has a list, but I didn't have time to research everything.”

      Ok. Black mass murderers/Serial killers. Except they weren’t targeting Whites. 4 of the Beltway Snipers 9 victims were black. Roof targeted Blacks. The guys you’re talking about were equal opportunity killers. They didn’t care who they killed as long as they were human.

      "That's not surprising in a white-founded country. I'm sure in Japan, the Japanese control the economy, education and business; in Uganda the Ugandans do, in Tonga, the Tongans do, etc."

      So why do you deny, that throughout our history, White Supremacy has been promoted from the beginning? And why are you comparing us to Japan, Uganda, and Tonga? We’re supposed to be better than them? Whatever happened to American Exceptionalism?? Why do conservatives insist on comparing the United States to other countries to find our moral compass? Conservatives always point to slavery having taken place in other countries as if that somehow excuses us with a stupid tu quoque argument?

      OK, maybe I misspoke when I said that all whites are racist according to “the media.” I should have said educators and the media.

      Article in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/jul/03/rac...

      That’s an editorial. It’s not the position of the Guardian. And it was written in 02.

      Another media source: http://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/post/w...

      Another opinion piece written by a White woman. It’s not the official position of “the media”. The radio station conducting the interview isn’t endorsing her position. She wrote a book and she’s being interviewed. That’s the extent of it.

      Here's an excerpt from Sohrab Ahmari’s interview with Greg Lukianoff in the Wall Street Journal: ““Consider the University of Delaware, which in fall 2007 instituted an ideological orientation for freshmen…Students were taught in group sessions that the term racist ‘applies to all white people’ while ‘people of color cannot be racists.’”

      This follows closely on the book by Robin DiAngelo. When she says this: “that racism is a system of oppression. That anyone can be prejudiced, but in America, only white people are racist.” , if what she says about racism being a system of oppression is true ( and it probably is, but I think it’s more than that ) then her comment might have some validity. We have a long history of racial oppression that is well documented and it’s easy to see our racist past, and present. But…I think she’s off the rails on this and that it’s not that simple. The best definition that I’ve come across is this: “Racism isn’t simply using the “n” word. It’s the complete benefit of the doubt toward one group, and the total skepticism toward another.” Certainly oppression of one race by another would qualify, but it runs much deeper than that. It’s not racist to see a person as being black, or Hispanic or Asian. That’s no different than seeing a person as male or female. What makes it racist is thinking that it matters. The University of Delaware should be ashamed of taking that position.

      “Duke University professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva also said that all whites are racist, in a lecture at Dartmouth College.”

      Again, a visiting lecturer doesn’t qualify as a position statement by Dartmouth. They have many lecturers during the course of the year.

      “Why should I? I'm not going to do the same thing that you've been doing, castigating a race of people for things that some members of the race have done in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right. Murder is just as wrong no matter who does it. However, if you would like an example, here's one from Genocide Watch. This is current, not old news from decades ago.”

      What happens in other parts of the world is something we have no control over. My concerns for the purposes of debate on this forum have to do with what takes place in the United States.

      **** “The tu quoque fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because someone else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it.”…Nowhere did I say that there was nothing wrong with it. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, in blaming only whites for something that all races and cultures have done.

      There is no hypocrisy involved here Connie. We’re talking about the conditions in this country, and there are no cases of blacks lynching whites or burning them alive in mass executions before thousands of spectators.

      **** “That's very easy for you to say, since you have no history of being on the receiving end of that kind of thing.”

      That is not true at all. I'm Catholic, and Catholics were persecuted and thrown into concentration camps by the Nazis, along with the Jews.

      Can you name one member of your immediate family that spent time in or was exterminated in a German Concentration Camp? I’m afraid your broad sweeping statement of being Catholic and therefore you understand the persecution that took place in Germany fails to resonate. The fact is that you have NO direct connection to any of that.

      But I can look at a swastika without getting a panic attack.

      That just reinforces what I’m saying. You have no direct connection to what took place over there. If you did, you’d feel differently. If you were Jewish you might feel quite differently.

      “Your white guilt has taken you to extremes. While people like Hanavee truly want to see real equality and racial harmony from both sides, you can't see beyond your views of the past, and "getting even with whitey". That doesn't solve anything.”

      Recognizing history is not a condition of guilt Connie. I’m able to empathize with other people, not just those of my own race or gender or ethnicity. I can see clearly when attitudes or policies prevail that inflict pain needlessly simply for the sake of racial purity or some other such bogus justification. It’s knowing that right and wrong have no dependency on color.

    • profile image

      Big E 21 months ago

      Where I live at nobody will mess with you if you are black. To me black skin is protection.

    • Connie120 profile image
      Author

      Connie120 21 months ago

      @Big E, it's like that in a lot of areas, but it shouldn't be that way. We should be able to live our lives in peace, no matter what our skin color. But I guess blacks have a reputation for being tough, especially in neighborhoods that are mostly black, while many white men have become very wimpy.

    • profile image

      Big E 21 months ago

      Connie,

      Black skin can protect a man from jerks of all colors. It is safer to be black.

      I want to change my appearance to black. Like John Howard Griffin.

      I want to look like a tough SOB with black skin. And be the white mans bodyguard.

      Black skin can toughen the white mans image.

      I think all the police should change their appearance to black.

    • profile image

      Sanxuary 2 months ago

      After WWII we banned the Natzi flag in Germany. I have no idea why we did not do the same with the Confederate flag. So is it ok if i fly the Natzi flag? My dead relatives who died in both wars might be offended. In truth its a matter of what you think that flag stands for. I live about as far north as you can imagine and people fly that flag around here because they are generally racist but they mostly see themselves as some kind of rebel. Oddly because we kicked both the natzis and the confederacy's ass we are some how tolerant. I think I would have a lot of fun burning both flags. On a flag pole which one is suppose to be on top? Trust me these two flags mean nothing to me and resonate failure. I salute them both with my middle finger.

    Click to Rate This Article