Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 680 times:
Mississippi residents voted overwhelmingly to keep the stars and bars on their flag yesterday.
The Confederacy was not founded on slavery - it was founded on the idea that states should have more power than the Federal Government, and that if the Federal Government became oppressive and non-representative, the states should have the right to leave - an arguement virtually the same as was used during the American Revolution.
Later adoption of the stars & bars by the KKK and other racists is a disgusting distortion of history. While nobody can defend the practice, slavery was but one ingoble part of the Confederacy's otherwise admirable ideals.
It appears that most citizens of Mississippi agree with that.
Tupolev154B2 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1332 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 661 times:
Since I don't live in Mississippi, it is none of my business.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 658 times:
Well, that's like saying
"The swastika existed long before the Nazis used it - as some ancient rhune and symbol, so it does not stand for National Socialism and painting it on walls should be legal...."
or, something which some people actually do say: The Deutschland-Lied of Hallersleben had not been written for the Nazis, but for the unification of Germany and hence it is entire legitimate to sing the first verses (it goes "Germany, Germany above the rest"). Currently, these verses are generally avoided because of their connections with Nazi Germany, instead those rambling on about "Unity, Justice, Freedom" are sung on those rare occassions when the German national anthem is used...
If a violent minority adopts a certain symbol or song or word, it is probably best for society to just drop that symbol, even if its historic meanings were different. Better to live without a funny looking flag than to be associated with KKK / Nazi people.
Anyway: That is just my opinion. I expect some radical right-wingers to come along any minute and scream something about constitution and pride and historic value and left-wing-education censoring or something similarly mindless..
Regards
Ikarus
PS: If there were a hammer and sickle some American State's flag, I'd be for abolishing that, too!
N766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 647 times:
I agree, Cfalk. The Confederacy was a very large part of the south's history because, as you said, they seceeded after the Federal government was overstepping its Constitutional bounds.
The flag is not a representative of slavery, rather the history of the state and a reminder of what can happen when a Federal government all but throws out the Constitution.
Just wait for that Mfume guy to march down to Mississippi and file a lawsuit...
WN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 649 times:
First, the flag in the canton of the Mississippi state flag is not the "stars and bars," but rather the Confederate Battle Flag. Let's please get this straight, because it is not the first time I have seen this mistake on this board.
"Stars and Bars" flag: the official flag of the Confederate States of America, it contains three stripes (red over white over red) with a canton of blue filled with 11 white stars.
Confederate Battle Flag: background of red with a blue St. Andrew's Cross filled with 11 white stars.
With that out of the way, I can address the merits of the election. The election was not about white against black as was the case in the South Carolina and Georgia examples. The appendage of the Confederate battle flag to the state flag of Georgia occurred in 1956 and the flag first flew over the South Carolina state house in 1962, both dates remarkably close to the height of the civil rights movement. This, of course, is no coincidence. Both Georgia and South Carolina took this action as a means of expressing their opposition to desegregation. Since that time, it has stood in both states as a symbol of state-endorsed white supremacy.
Mississippi, on the other hand, added the Confederate battle flag to its state flag in 1898, long before any civil rights movement. It was added not as a statement on race, but rather as a protest against the invideous effects of Reconstruction which had ended only 25 years prior.
That being said, the election yesterday did not come at the behest of black leaders in the state or under threat of an NAACP boycott, but rather through the efforts of the business leaders of the state. Ultimately, it does not look good to investors to have the Confederate battle flag flying outside your corporate headquarters in the year 2001. Mississippi's rejection of the revised flag, therefore, was not a vote against blacks. Nor was it a vote for racism. Rather, it was a vote to remain a backwater, the armpit of America (with all due respect to the other notable backwaters of Arkansas and Louisiana). It was a vote against corporate development and prosperity. It was a vote for continuing the ancient, though increasingly impoverished, Mississippi economy that revolves around the cotton trade and the use of manual labour.
So, my friends, do not hate Mississippi or excoriate it as racist (which it may be completely separate and apart from its state flag). Rather, pity it as you would a friend that needs help but refuses to seek it.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38505 posts, RR: 80 Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 628 times:
Wow I am impressed!
I was expecting you to defend Mississippi, but I am glad you didn't.
Mississippi is strange place. I've been there years ago and I'll never go back! I was there for a family reunion. My grandparents are from Mississippi.
That vote goes to show why the Federal Government has so much power. Ass-backwards states like Mississippi would have to much power and oppress people within that state.
What a shame!
N766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 620 times:
Superfly, the whole idea behind this great nation was that the States created the Federal government, not the other way around. The power is supposed to be within the States and not the Federal government.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38505 posts, RR: 80 Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 613 times:
States like Mississippi abuse that privilege. Some southern states in the past has demostrated that states rights needs to be contained.
States like Mississippi can make this 'great nation' not so great!
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 598 times:
Because, as an American, I would hope that you would agree to the central cause of the confederacy - freedom of determination for a people who felt that the Federal Government was abusing its power.
One small example was that all exports from the southern states had to be sold through northern merchants, by law, which made sure that the money was made up north.
Slavery was but a side-issue. The Fereral Government only stated two years after the beginning of the war that it intended to free the slaves, and it could be argued that it was not out of their good heart, but rather to cause upheaval behind enemy lines.
My position is that, although I abhor slavery, I agree with the rest of the confederate platform.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38505 posts, RR: 80 Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 594 times:
How come years and years after slavery, the south is still bitching about states rights and the rest of the country dosen't make a fuss about it?
I know the north profited greatly off of slavery.
However, the only people who hold on to the argument of states right are/were demogouges(sp) like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, David Duke, Jessie Helms etc.?
FYI; States do have rights!
The laws are very different from Maine, Hawaii, Utah, Louisiana, Alaska you name it!
The southern states only hide behind the 'states right' clause in the constitution when it suits there own backwards agenda.
I can cry about California's states rights being trampled on too!
I voted in favor of proposition 215 Legal use of Medical Marijuana Initiative, the southern conservative 'states rights' senators all had a fit and used the power of ther Federal gov. to over-ride the initiative.
Ikarus explained it perfectly above.
There's no need to argue with you anymore over this!
I am going to bed.
WN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 584 times:
Superfly, I do not know why you should be impressed. I thought my previous posts amply demonstrated by pro-business ideology. Here, I am not convinced that the original intent behind the placement of the Confederate battle flag in the Mississippi state flag had racist intent. I do, however, recognize that in the more than 100 years since it was originally placed there it has become a symbol of racism and white supremacy. Moreover, it is a symbol that has become associated with the poor, underdeveloped, provincial South. It is no wonder that business in Mississippi wanted to distance themselves from this symbol. What dot com would want the Confederate battle flag flying outside its corporate headquarters? Unfortunately, Tuesday's election represented the defeat of Mississippi's business interests at the hands of that state's Nascar-watching, fried turkey-eating, car on blocks-possessing, no shirt-wearing Redneck majority.
My question would be to you, what among my previous posts would lead you to believe that I would side with the followers of Dale Jarrett over Mississippi's business interests?
N863DA From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 48 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 576 times:
I would like to point out that what you refer to as the 'Stars & Bars' is not what you think it is. As WN_boy pointed out, The Stars & Bars is the flag of the Confederate States of America BUT it has SEVEN stars, not eleven. (For the seven states in the original Confederacy.) The Confederate Battle Flag is what you all know and hate (perhaps, nowadays, with good reason) but it is NOT the Stars & Bars.
The Confederate Flag, as it is known, has become a symbol of the KKK, racism and other far-right groups. This is sinful in my opinion, as it is merely a reminder of past oppression in this country - and by continuing to use it in this way, it's not doing anyone any favors.
I believe that there is argument for removing the Battle Flag from the state-flag perhaps - for what it NOW represents (not what it did represent) is oppression & KKK relations. Truly Sinful - giving the South an undeservedly bad name.
However, I am a proud flyer of the Stars & Bars - that is a flag with Red-over-white-over-red, with seven stars in a circle in a blue top-left quadrant.
I am a very proud Southerner, but I cannot say that I approve of the Confederate Battle Flag being flown for the connotations that it has come to represent - not neccesarily what it did represent.
Please bear in mind that despite what Yankees insist on telling you, the war did not start over Slavery. The war started over Seccesion - and Lincoln MADE it over slavery to try and rally support - but in the process, losing a lot of his own Northern support by alienating Yankee slave-owners & business owners. It's White Supremasists that have truly screwed it all up for the south, doing no one any favors.
In all honesty, the flag is not the problem here. It's the KKK and other organizations (Aryan Nation etc.) that are the problem - in so many ways.
And FYI - The South is a great place to live, and we are not all racist white-trash as all you Yankees would have the world believe. We have more culture than most of you could ever wish for in the North.
And, as an aside, in my personal opinion, we could do without two of the Southern states... Alabama and Mississippi. Just my opinion, however!
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5091 posts, RR: 28 Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 534 times:
It is said that those who do not recall history, are doomed to repeat it.
It is valuable to recognize something in historical context, and sometimes you need to have a none-too-subtle reminder of where you might go, if you forget where you've been.
This entire issue is not about substantive rights (like the denial of equal protection and constitutionally-protected civil rights); it is about the effort by self-promoters to create controversy over trivial issues, to the detriment of progress on important ones.
Finally, as an aside, it is ludicrous to suggest that only southern states have interest in states' rights. every state is compellingly interested in states' rights, when it benefits them.
There is an interesting point to be made about the redistribution of wealth by the federal government, but I haven't time to do the topic justice, as I get to go read to my son's kindergarten class tomorrow and must go select a book. It will be the most important thing I do all week, and I have been very busy.
Good day all. Thank you for not slashing each other.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
Ctbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 52 Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 524 times:
Although states' rights was indeed the central issue over which the civil war was fought, slavery was indeed the motiviation for it.
Abolitionism had become a popular movement in much of the north and west, with slavery having been banned just about everywhere but the south. While it was true that plantation owners were a small minority, they did wield considerable economic and political power, and had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. This along with the fact that this "peculuar institution" had become a part of southern culture, despite the proportionately few number of slaveowners.
Added to this mix was the problem of secionalism where regional resentments and mistrust between the north, south and west were to escolate, primarily over the slavery issue. Southerners felt threatened over resentments by the North and West, and developed an intrecate pro-slavery arguement based upon soliological, economic and biblical grounds.
Various comprimises were tried but failed, only serving to intensify the conflict between the states who felt it was their right to allow the keeping slaves, thus resisting all attempts by the federal government to ban slavery. Tensions further escolated as newly established territories in the west fought over whether to be "slave" or "free." The Supreme Court became involved with its infamous Dread Scott decision, effectivly establishing Blacks as "non-persons" and thus having no rights. In addition, anti-slave laws in Missouri (where the origingal suit was brought) were unconstitutional.
The combination of disputes over slavery, sectionalism, and demands over whether states had the right to determine these things for themselves were what eventually caused the Civil War. Undoubtedly, slavery played a major role in the arguement over states rights.
Charles, SJ
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38505 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
