What does the confederate flag mean to you? (1 Viewer)

[Kal El]

In what is likely to be an ultimately unsuccessful effort to get this thread back on track, I'm going to offer this forward: A symbol, whether it's a flag, a drawing, or whatever, cannot be racist. It's just an object, a tool. The Confederacy rebelled for various reasons, chief among them was the idea that their voice wasn't being heard by the people in Washington. Granted, they were worried about slavery, and mistakenly thought that they were right in owning slaves, but owning slaves was still legal is several states in the Union, and remained that way for a large portion of the war. Neither side is blameless here, so if we're banning flags for being racist, the Native Americans would surely have a bone to pick with the American flag, considering several massacres of their people were perpetrated on them by the US Army.

The idea that we should rid ourselves of everything Confederate is, at the very least, a stupid idea. Whatever their shortcomings were concerning slavery, which was still legal in several Northern States at the time the War started, they still fought for their cause, some against their own families and friends, and they should be remembered as veterans.

 

[TobiasFunke]

In what is likely to be an ultimately unsuccessful effort to get this thread back on track, I'm going to offer this forward: A symbol, whether it's a flag, a drawing, or whatever, cannot be racist. It's just an object, a tool. The Confederacy rebelled for various reasons, chief among them was the idea that their voice wasn't being heard by the people in Washington. Granted, they were worried about slavery, and mistakenly thought that they were right in owning slaves, but owning slaves was still legal is several states in the Union, and remained that way for a large portion of the war. Neither side is blameless here, so if we're banning flags for being racist, the Native Americans would surely have a bone to pick with the American flag, considering several massacres of their people were perpetrated on them by the US Army.

The idea that we should rid ourselves of everything Confederate is, at the very least, a stupid idea. Whatever their shortcomings were concerning slavery, which was still legal in several Northern States at the time the War started, they still fought for their cause, some against their own families and friends, and they should be remembered as veterans.

This is false and has been disproved over and over again in this thread. Unless when you say "their voice wasn't being heard by the people in Washington" you're referring to their voicing the opinion that slavery was super awesome. In that case, yes, that was their primary gripe.

The rest of your post is also stuff has also been addressed over and over in this thread. There's a difference between a flag or symbol that represents a group of people who did bad things (as almost all people have) and a flag or symbol that represents a group of people whose primary purpose was to do bad things- in this case to protect the institution of slavery, and when the flag re-emerged in the 1950s to fight the civil rights movement, to fight integration and racial equality.

As for remembering veterans- you can remember veterans without using imagery associated with hatred and evil. Here are some images of the La Cambe cemetery for German soldiers near Normandy. Nice looking place, right? Honors the dead in a fitting and respectful way. How many Nazi symbols do you see there? Do you think there should be some?

 

[the moops]

I imagine people's facebook page has instances of people hopping on one side or the other of this issue. And all I can tell is that every yahoo that is posting pictures and videos in support of the flag were racist dirtbags back in high school, so I imagine not much has changed considering they still live in the same town and hang out with the same friends.

 

[joffer]

We banned the confederate flag? When did that happen?

 

[The Commish]

We banned the confederate flag? When did that happen?

Best I can tell, this is in progress, not yet complete. However, it has extended to include private property, so there's that.

ETA: Crap, I better clarify this before people get their panties in a bunch. The property isn't private. It's funded through private funds.

 

[TobiasFunke]

We banned the confederate flag? When did that happen?

Best I can tell, this is in progress, not yet complete. However, it has extended to include private property, so there's that.

link?

 

[The Commish]

damn...too late

 

[timschochet]

The South rebelled because of slavery. That was their reason. They wanted it extended in the new states being added, and they also didn't believe Lincoln and feared he would find ways to end it in their existing states. Slavery was absolutely the key issue, pretty much the only issue for secession. Anybody who tells you differently is either misinformed or deliberately lying.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

In what is likely to be an ultimately unsuccessful effort to get this thread back on track, I'm going to offer this forward: A symbol, whether it's a flag, a drawing, or whatever, cannot be racist. It's just an object, a tool. The Confederacy rebelled for various reasons, chief among them was the idea that their voice wasn't being heard by the people in Washington. Granted, they were worried about slavery, and mistakenly thought that they were right in owning slaves, but owning slaves was still legal is several states in the Union, and remained that way for a large portion of the war. Neither side is blameless here, so if we're banning flags for being racist, the Native Americans would surely have a bone to pick with the American flag, considering several massacres of their people were perpetrated on them by the US Army.

The idea that we should rid ourselves of everything Confederate is, at the very least, a stupid idea. Whatever their shortcomings were concerning slavery, which was still legal in several Northern States at the time the War started, they still fought for their cause, some against their own families and friends, and they should be remembered as veterans.

This is categorically 100% wrong and an afront to our history. Their voice was being heard. They got every settlement, deal, concession and tax policy they bargained for for years and decades leading up to the first shots being fired. The criminal leaders of the rebellion got fed up because they were running out of deals to make and then came to the conclusion that the very system they used to their advantage and worked within was no longer valid because they believed they weren't going to get what they wanted anymore.

That is the impetus for the war. Not some kind of nobel belief in government, self government, states rights, etc. It's was childish whining but a bunch of adults that feared they weren't going to get their way anymore.

 

[timschochet]

Yankee is essentially right in his facts, though I don't agree that the Confederates were criminals. But interpretation of events aside he is correct.

 

[FUBAR]

So now we're cycling back to the Lincoln Was A Racist Too angle. Cool.

it's time to burn down Monticello too. And the University of Virginia while we're at it.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee is essentially right in his facts, though I don't agree that the Confederates were criminals. But interpretation of events aside he is correct.

Each and every person that took up arms against the government of the United States or asssited others or harbored others who did was a criminal at best and a traitor at worst.

What you actually believe isn't so much that the description is wrong, but that the resulting punishment from that description would be. And to some extent I would agree. I don't believe that it would just a proper to incarcerate or execute every single person fitting that description in the southern states. But the leaders? The political leaders, generals, policy makers and diplomats? They deserved the fullest punishment available at the time.

 

[FUBAR]

Yankee is essentially right in his facts, though I don't agree that the Confederates were criminals. But interpretation of events aside he is correct.

they were every bit the criminals that the Boston Tea partiers were.

 

[timschochet]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Also- the Native American tribes in Texas (Souix, Comanche, Apache) who accepted American citizenship but who then, after years of mistreatment, launched attacks against the U.S. army and civilians in the 1870s- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Yankee is essentially right in his facts, though I don't agree that the Confederates were criminals. But interpretation of events aside he is correct.

Each and every person that took up arms against the government of the United States or asssited others or harbored others who did was a criminal at best and a traitor at worst. What you actually believe isn't so much that the description is wrong, but that the resulting punishment from that description would be. And to some extent I would agree. I don't believe that it would just a proper to incarcerate or execute every single person fitting that description in the southern states. But the leaders? The political leaders, generals, policy makers and diplomats? They deserved the fullest punishment available at the time.

After the war, how many Confederates were charged with treason by the existing government of the USA? How many were convicted of it?How did the existing US Court system, the Supreme Court, handle all of these treason trials?

I understand how you feel 150 years later, but how did they handle it then?

 

[FUBAR]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

yep. often, the only difference in the history books between "revoloutionary" and "traitor" is whether that side won / who wrote the book.

 

[timschochet]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

 

[FUBAR]

Yankee is essentially right in his facts, though I don't agree that the Confederates were criminals. But interpretation of events aside he is correct.

Each and every person that took up arms against the government of the United States or asssited others or harbored others who did was a criminal at best and a traitor at worst. What you actually believe isn't so much that the description is wrong, but that the resulting punishment from that description would be. And to some extent I would agree. I don't believe that it would just a proper to incarcerate or execute every single person fitting that description in the southern states. But the leaders? The political leaders, generals, policy makers and diplomats? They deserved the fullest punishment available at the time.

After the war, how many Confederates were charged with treason by the existing government of the USA? How many were convicted of it?How did the existing US Court system, the Supreme Court, handle all of these treason trials?

I understand how you feel 150 years later, but how did they handle it then?

President Andrew Johnson issued an amnesty proclamation to "induce all persons to return to their loyalty" to the United States of America. This was the third of such proclamations, but the first to offer amnesty at the conclusion of the war. Johnson offered an oath to all participants in the "rebellion." After swearing this oath all rights of property would be restored on the individual except that of owning slaves. Exempted from the benefits of the oath were fourteen "classes" of individuals who engaged in the war against the Union from civil or diplomatic officers of the Confederacy to individuals who conducted piracy against Union commerce during the war. However, individuals in the "excepted classes" were allowed to apply for pardon from the President.

 

[msommer]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

One of them burned a copy of the U.S. constitution in a public square.

For an American, is this similar to what burning a Koran is to a muslim?

 

[timschochet]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

 

[jonessed]

Yankee is essentially right in his facts, though I don't agree that the Confederates were criminals. But interpretation of events aside he is correct.

Each and every person that took up arms against the government of the United States or asssited others or harbored others who did was a criminal at best and a traitor at worst. What you actually believe isn't so much that the description is wrong, but that the resulting punishment from that description would be. And to some extent I would agree. I don't believe that it would just a proper to incarcerate or execute every single person fitting that description in the southern states. But the leaders? The political leaders, generals, policy makers and diplomats? They deserved the fullest punishment available at the time.

After the war, how many Confederates were charged with treason by the existing government of the USA? How many were convicted of it?How did the existing US Court system, the Supreme Court, handle all of these treason trials?

I understand how you feel 150 years later, but how did they handle it then?

Davis was charged, but the charges were dropped after a few years. I think that's it.

At that time people were considered citizens of their state first, nation second. It would have been difficult to convict anyone who hadn't taken an oath at some point.

 

[FUBAR]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

Statues and monuments are very much like the flag - in a museum. in the context of history, all are part of who we, as a nation, are. So I completely agree that we should keep history readily available for those who want to learn from it.

but really? you plan to visit the South someday? how the #### have you not been in the south by now?

 

[timschochet]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

Statues and monuments are very much like the flag - in a museum. in the context of history, all are part of who we, as a nation, are. So I completely agree that we should keep history readily available for those who want to learn from it.

but really? you plan to visit the South someday? how the #### have you not been in the south by now?

My family and financial obligations have limited my ability to travel. Hopefully that will be changing in the future, as I'm doing better and my children are growing older.

 

[FUBAR]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

Statues and monuments are very much like the flag - in a museum. in the context of history, all are part of who we, as a nation, are. So I completely agree that we should keep history readily available for those who want to learn from it.

but really? you plan to visit the South someday? how the #### have you not been in the south by now?

My family and financial obligations have limited my ability to travel. Hopefully that will be changing in the future, as I'm doing better and my children are growing older.

not to derail the conversation, but do you mean you literally have never been south of the mason-dixon line?

I'm just astounded that someone as knowledgeable of all things has never been to the cultural mecca of the US-South.

 

[timschochet]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

Statues and monuments are very much like the flag - in a museum. in the context of history, all are part of who we, as a nation, are. So I completely agree that we should keep history readily available for those who want to learn from it.

but really? you plan to visit the South someday? how the #### have you not been in the south by now?

My family and financial obligations have limited my ability to travel. Hopefully that will be changing in the future, as I'm doing better and my children are growing older.

not to derail the conversation, but do you mean you literally have never been south of the mason-dixon line?

I'm just astounded that someone as knowledgeable of all things has never been to the cultural mecca of the US-South.

Ive been to Florida but that a Disneyworld trip. And I've been to Texas. That's about it.

 

[FUBAR]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

Statues and monuments are very much like the flag - in a museum. in the context of history, all are part of who we, as a nation, are. So I completely agree that we should keep history readily available for those who want to learn from it.

but really? you plan to visit the South someday? how the #### have you not been in the south by now?

My family and financial obligations have limited my ability to travel. Hopefully that will be changing in the future, as I'm doing better and my children are growing older.

not to derail the conversation, but do you mean you literally have never been south of the mason-dixon line?

I'm just astounded that someone as knowledgeable of all things has never been to the cultural mecca of the US-South.

Ive been to Florida but that a Disneyworld trip. And I've been to Texas. That's about it.

yeah, Florida is basically the north but hotter, Texas is a different entity entirely.

your backwoods brothers would welcome you. maybe with pitchforks, but you'd receive a warm welcome.

 

[timschochet]

Places I've been:

All over California, my home state, and there's an awful lot to see here: San Francisco, Yosemite, Napa, Big Sur, Monterey, the Redwoods, etc.

Oregon- several times

Hawaii- Several times

Washington (state)

western Canada

Nevada (of course, all the time)

Arizona

New Mexico

Colorado

the Mexican Riviera- Mazatlan, Acapulco, Puerto Vallarte, etc.

Columbia

Costa Rica

England

Scotland

New York City

Rochester NY

Buffalo

Niagara

Boston

Detroit

Orlando

Ft Lauderdale

That's about it.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee is essentially right in his facts, though I don't agree that the Confederates were criminals. But interpretation of events aside he is correct.

Each and every person that took up arms against the government of the United States or asssited others or harbored others who did was a criminal at best and a traitor at worst. What you actually believe isn't so much that the description is wrong, but that the resulting punishment from that description would be. And to some extent I would agree. I don't believe that it would just a proper to incarcerate or execute every single person fitting that description in the southern states. But the leaders? The political leaders, generals, policy makers and diplomats? They deserved the fullest punishment available at the time.

After the war, how many Confederates were charged with treason by the existing government of the USA? How many were convicted of it?How did the existing US Court system, the Supreme Court, handle all of these treason trials?

I understand how you feel 150 years later, but how did they handle it then?

Not enough, but it was politically better to handle it the way it was handled. Civil wars are tough after they are over and the country tries to move on. They handled it then probably as best as they could. I don't understand the point of the question though.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee- the abolitionists in the early 1850s who fought the U.S. Govt over the Fugitive Slave Law, (they broke slaves out of prison, defied US marshals, sent blacks to Canada, etc)- do you regard them as criminals and traitors?

Criminals.

yep. often, the only difference in the history books between "revoloutionary" and "traitor" is whether that side won / who wrote the book.

It is the only difference really. People like to say, "yeah, well George Washington was a traitor!" No kidding. The foudners were traitors and criminals - to the crown. They are our heroes. This isn't unusual or wrong.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

 

[Slapdash]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

Haven't even seen it mentioned here that Roof was able to buy his gun because the FBI background check system didn't work. This was only released on Friday night after the flag came down. Buried beneath all the other media coverage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-accused-charleston-shooter-should-not-have-been-able-to-buy-gun/2015/07/10/0d09fda0-271f-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html

 

[Mjolnirs]

After the war, how many Confederates were charged with treason by the existing government of the USA? How many were convicted of it?

How did the existing US Court system, the Supreme Court, handle all of these treason trials?

I understand how you feel 150 years later, but how did they handle it then?

Not enough, but it was politically better to handle it the way it was handled. Civil wars are tough after they are over and the country tries to move on. They handled it then probably as best as they could. I don't understand the point of the question though.

The point? To show that nobody was convicted of treason at the time. You know I knew the answer.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

Damn

Haven't even seen it mentioned here that Roof was about to buy his gun because the FBI background check system didn't work. This was only released on Friday night after the flag came down. Buried beneath all the other media coverage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-accused-charleston-shooter-should-not-have-been-able-to-buy-gun/2015/07/10/0d09fda0-271f-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html

That doesn't make good copy.

 

[FUBAR]

Not enough, but it was politically better to handle it the way it was handled. Civil wars are tough after they are over and the country tries to move on. They handled it then probably as best as they could. I don't understand the point of the question though.

The point? To show that nobody was convicted of treason at the time. You know I knew the answer.

Right - President Johnson provided amnesty and pardons.

 

[The Commish]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

YF doing God's work in here. It's really hard to take all this "outrage" seriously when it comes and goes with the random news cycles.

 

[jonessed]

Not enough, but it was politically better to handle it the way it was handled. Civil wars are tough after they are over and the country tries to move on. They handled it then probably as best as they could. I don't understand the point of the question though.

The point? To show that nobody was convicted of treason at the time. You know I knew the answer.

Right - President Johnson provided amnesty and pardons.

There weren't a whole lot of options for him. They were never going to send anyone to trial. Davis had already sat in prison for two years without so much as a date.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

If you're gonna tell everyone to grow up and that they're being stupid you probably shouldn't make a straw man argument in the same post. I haven't seen a single poster or member of the media suggest anything close to the idea that flags and monuments are "the real evil" and the shooting deaths of those 9 people are not.

You could also understand that people have opposed the Confederate flag and the glorification of the Confederacy for decades rather than dismissing their position as merely "the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something." This thread is nine years old and had 11 pages' worth of posts before the shooting. This is hardly a new debate; only its prominence is new.

And you might also consider (even if you disagree) that many people see the Roof shooting as connected to the South's failure to ever reckon with its past, including its recent past in the 1950s and 1960s, and the casual acceptance of racism that this attitude seems to foster. After all Roof wasn't born a white supremacist, and so far I don't believe there's been any indication that his family taught him to be one.

But I suppose it's easier to angrily declare that you understand everyone else's motivations and concerns so you can dismiss them.

 

[The Commish]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

If you're gonna tell everyone to grow up and that they're being stupid you probably shouldn't make a straw man argument in the same post. I haven't seen a single poster or member of the media suggest anything close to the idea that flags and monuments are "the real evil" and the shooting deaths of those 9 people are not.

You could also understand that people have opposed the Confederate flag and the glorification of the Confederacy for decades rather than dismissing their position as merely "the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something." This thread is nine years old and had 11 pages' worth of posts before the shooting. This is hardly a new debate; only its prominence is new.

And you might also consider (even if you disagree) that many people see the Roof shooting as connected to the South's failure to ever reckon with its past, including its recent past in the 1950s and 1960s, and the casual acceptance of racism that this attitude seems to foster. After all Roof wasn't born a white supremacist, and so far I don't believe there's been any indication that his family taught him to be one.

But I suppose it's easier to angrily declare that you understand everyone else's motivations and concerns so you can dismiss them.

It goes to what's being covered YF's point is, these people died and we hear virtually nothing about them or their families anymore in the media. However, we can't turn on the television without seeing more about these flags. The media doesn't have to say a word. Their actions speak for them. Same applies to individuals. For a lot of people this has become a major soapbox built on top of an ivory tower. It'd be really entertaining if it weren't so transparent.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

If you're gonna tell everyone to grow up and that they're being stupid you probably shouldn't make a straw man argument in the same post. I haven't seen a single poster or member of the media suggest anything close to the idea that flags and monuments are "the real evil" and the shooting deaths of those 9 people are not.

You could also understand that people have opposed the Confederate flag and the glorification of the Confederacy for decades rather than dismissing their position as merely "the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something." This thread is nine years old and had 11 pages' worth of posts before the shooting. This is hardly a new debate; only its prominence is new.

And you might also consider (even if you disagree) that many people see the Roof shooting as connected to the South's failure to ever reckon with its past, including its recent past in the 1950s and 1960s, and the casual acceptance of racism that this attitude seems to foster. After all Roof wasn't born a white supremacist, and so far I don't believe there's been any indication that his family taught him to be one.

But I suppose it's easier to angrily declare that you understand everyone else's motivations and concerns so you can dismiss them.

It goes to what's being covered YF's point is, these people died and we hear virtually nothing about them or their families anymore in the media. However, we can't turn on the television without seeing more about these flags. The media doesn't have to say a word. Their actions speak for them. Same applies to individuals. For a lot of people this has become a major soapbox built on top of an ivory tower. It'd be really entertaining if it weren't so transparent.

Why would the news cover the deaths of nine people a month ago? That's not news. And I don't say that to be callous- I just think you're confusing "importance" with "newsworthiness." Newsworthiness includes a time element. There's no unexpected developments or events of significance or points of debate with respect to the actual shooting. When Roof goes to trial I promise you it will be front page news.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

If you're gonna tell everyone to grow up and that they're being stupid you probably shouldn't make a straw man argument in the same post. I haven't seen a single poster or member of the media suggest anything close to the idea that flags and monuments are "the real evil" and the shooting deaths of those 9 people are not.

You could also understand that people have opposed the Confederate flag and the glorification of the Confederacy for decades rather than dismissing their position as merely "the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something." This thread is nine years old and had 11 pages' worth of posts before the shooting. This is hardly a new debate; only its prominence is new.

And you might also consider (even if you disagree) that many people see the Roof shooting as connected to the South's failure to ever reckon with its past, including its recent past in the 1950s and 1960s, and the casual acceptance of racism that this attitude seems to foster. After all Roof wasn't born a white supremacist, and so far I don't believe there's been any indication that his family taught him to be one.

But I suppose it's easier to angrily declare that you understand everyone else's motivations and concerns so you can dismiss them.

Yeah, because I'm the guy with no nuance in this topic. Me.

You and I have gone down this road before. We see things massively differently. It won't change.

 

[The Commish]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

If you're gonna tell everyone to grow up and that they're being stupid you probably shouldn't make a straw man argument in the same post. I haven't seen a single poster or member of the media suggest anything close to the idea that flags and monuments are "the real evil" and the shooting deaths of those 9 people are not.

You could also understand that people have opposed the Confederate flag and the glorification of the Confederacy for decades rather than dismissing their position as merely "the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something." This thread is nine years old and had 11 pages' worth of posts before the shooting. This is hardly a new debate; only its prominence is new.

And you might also consider (even if you disagree) that many people see the Roof shooting as connected to the South's failure to ever reckon with its past, including its recent past in the 1950s and 1960s, and the casual acceptance of racism that this attitude seems to foster. After all Roof wasn't born a white supremacist, and so far I don't believe there's been any indication that his family taught him to be one.

But I suppose it's easier to angrily declare that you understand everyone else's motivations and concerns so you can dismiss them.

It goes to what's being covered YF's point is, these people died and we hear virtually nothing about them or their families anymore in the media. However, we can't turn on the television without seeing more about these flags. The media doesn't have to say a word. Their actions speak for them. Same applies to individuals. For a lot of people this has become a major soapbox built on top of an ivory tower. It'd be really entertaining if it weren't so transparent.

Why would the news cover the deaths of nine people a month ago? That's not news. And I don't say that to be callous- I just think you're confusing "importance" with "newsworthiness." Newsworthiness includes a time element. There's no unexpected developments or events of significance or points of debate with respect to the actual shooting. When Roof goes to trial I promise you it will be front page news.

ok I'll officially put you on the "faux outrage" list

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

If you're gonna tell everyone to grow up and that they're being stupid you probably shouldn't make a straw man argument in the same post. I haven't seen a single poster or member of the media suggest anything close to the idea that flags and monuments are "the real evil" and the shooting deaths of those 9 people are not.

You could also understand that people have opposed the Confederate flag and the glorification of the Confederacy for decades rather than dismissing their position as merely "the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something." This thread is nine years old and had 11 pages' worth of posts before the shooting. This is hardly a new debate; only its prominence is new.

And you might also consider (even if you disagree) that many people see the Roof shooting as connected to the South's failure to ever reckon with its past, including its recent past in the 1950s and 1960s, and the casual acceptance of racism that this attitude seems to foster. After all Roof wasn't born a white supremacist, and so far I don't believe there's been any indication that his family taught him to be one.

But I suppose it's easier to angrily declare that you understand everyone else's motivations and concerns so you can dismiss them.

It goes to what's being covered YF's point is, these people died and we hear virtually nothing about them or their families anymore in the media. However, we can't turn on the television without seeing more about these flags. The media doesn't have to say a word. Their actions speak for them. Same applies to individuals. For a lot of people this has become a major soapbox built on top of an ivory tower. It'd be really entertaining if it weren't so transparent.

Why would the news cover the deaths of nine people a month ago? That's not news. And I don't say that to be callous- I just think you're confusing "importance" with "newsworthiness." Newsworthiness includes a time element. There's no unexpected developments or events of significance or points of debate with respect to the actual shooting. When Roof goes to trial I promise you it will be front page news.

ok I'll officially put you on the "faux outrage" list

I'm not sure how you got "faux outrage" from a post explaining why the news doesn't really talk about the 9 shooting victims any more, but sure, put me on whatever silly list makes you happy.

 

[Jackstraw]

Waving confederate flags at the first black president is terrible optics if you're going for the we're not really racist angle.

 

[MattFancy]

Waving confederate flags at the first black president is terrible optics if you're going for the we're not really racist angle.

Thought the same thing. Just not smart.

 

[Doug B]

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

God, yes.

If you weren't stumping for Confederate monument removal two months ago or earlier, today's tut-tutting rings hollow.

The Confederate flag issue is older, though even that mattered socially much, much less than it did two months ago.

 

[Doug B]

You could also understand that people have opposed the Confederate flag and the glorification of the Confederacy for decades rather than dismissing their position as merely "the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something." This thread is nine years old and had 11 pages' worth of posts before the shooting. This is hardly a new debate; only its prominence is new.

And even that can be viewed cynically.

TV Land picked up Dukes of Hazard on June 10th of this year. What, really -- REALLY = personally affecting much of society -- changed since then? If Dylan Rood gets in a car accident on the way to the church that night, the Dukes of Hazard is still on TV Land, Apple and EBay still carry Confederate-themed games & items, and the SC statehouse grounds still fly a Confederate flag.

All such things should be reckoned as right or wrong on their own merits, not merely on the whims of fate. If all those changes had to happen, why does a Dylan Roof have to come along to make it happen? Where was the moral compass of the nation two months ago? Why was there as much societal silence as there was on the matter, recognizing that the silence was not absolute?

 

[Slapdash]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

If you're gonna tell everyone to grow up and that they're being stupid you probably shouldn't make a straw man argument in the same post. I haven't seen a single poster or member of the media suggest anything close to the idea that flags and monuments are "the real evil" and the shooting deaths of those 9 people are not.

You could also understand that people have opposed the Confederate flag and the glorification of the Confederacy for decades rather than dismissing their position as merely "the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something." This thread is nine years old and had 11 pages' worth of posts before the shooting. This is hardly a new debate; only its prominence is new.

And you might also consider (even if you disagree) that many people see the Roof shooting as connected to the South's failure to ever reckon with its past, including its recent past in the 1950s and 1960s, and the casual acceptance of racism that this attitude seems to foster. After all Roof wasn't born a white supremacist, and so far I don't believe there's been any indication that his family taught him to be one.

But I suppose it's easier to angrily declare that you understand everyone else's motivations and concerns so you can dismiss them.

It goes to what's being covered YF's point is, these people died and we hear virtually nothing about them or their families anymore in the media. However, we can't turn on the television without seeing more about these flags. The media doesn't have to say a word. Their actions speak for them. Same applies to individuals. For a lot of people this has become a major soapbox built on top of an ivory tower. It'd be really entertaining if it weren't so transparent.

Why would the news cover the deaths of nine people a month ago? That's not news. And I don't say that to be callous- I just think you're confusing "importance" with "newsworthiness." Newsworthiness includes a time element. There's no unexpected developments or events of significance or points of debate with respect to the actual shooting. When Roof goes to trial I promise you it will be front page news.

I'd say the FBI news is both unexpected and significant, yet everyone is still jabbering about the Confederacy and Nazis

 

[QuizGuy66]

Waving confederate flags at the first black president is terrible optics if you're going for the we're not really racist angle.

Thought the same thing. Just not smart.

In a state was not a part of the confederacy, no less.

-QG

(edited to fix accidentally typing "not not" as Oklahoma was not not not part of the Conderacy)

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yankee and I are never going to agree, but let's bring this back around to the question of whether or not Confederate statues and monuments should be removed. And let's put aside for the moment the question of who gets to decide that- I want to discuss what people believe in their hearts SHOULD happen.

I don't think this is like the flag. I think if we remove these statues and monuments we are removing a vital part of our history. I'll make this simple- I'm a Civil War buff, I plan to visit the South someday and I want to see these statues and monuments. I want children told the good and the bad of what they did. I think it's important.

What should happen is everyone should grow up. There is nothing wrong with monuments and flags of our past, good guys or bad. The people that are focusing on it now are latching on the emotion of today with little true reason beyond the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something. Meanwhile, 9 people are still dead and yet that story isn't talked about much anymore - but the flag! the flag! and that monument with a guy on a horse! That's the real evil. It's stupid. But it's typical.

If you're gonna tell everyone to grow up and that they're being stupid you probably shouldn't make a straw man argument in the same post. I haven't seen a single poster or member of the media suggest anything close to the idea that flags and monuments are "the real evil" and the shooting deaths of those 9 people are not.

You could also understand that people have opposed the Confederate flag and the glorification of the Confederacy for decades rather than dismissing their position as merely "the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something." This thread is nine years old and had 11 pages' worth of posts before the shooting. This is hardly a new debate; only its prominence is new.

And you might also consider (even if you disagree) that many people see the Roof shooting as connected to the South's failure to ever reckon with its past, including its recent past in the 1950s and 1960s, and the casual acceptance of racism that this attitude seems to foster. After all Roof wasn't born a white supremacist, and so far I don't believe there's been any indication that his family taught him to be one.

But I suppose it's easier to angrily declare that you understand everyone else's motivations and concerns so you can dismiss them.

It goes to what's being covered YF's point is, these people died and we hear virtually nothing about them or their families anymore in the media. However, we can't turn on the television without seeing more about these flags. The media doesn't have to say a word. Their actions speak for them. Same applies to individuals. For a lot of people this has become a major soapbox built on top of an ivory tower. It'd be really entertaining if it weren't so transparent.

Why would the news cover the deaths of nine people a month ago? That's not news. And I don't say that to be callous- I just think you're confusing "importance" with "newsworthiness." Newsworthiness includes a time element. There's no unexpected developments or events of significance or points of debate with respect to the actual shooting. When Roof goes to trial I promise you it will be front page news.

I'd say the FBI news is both unexpected and significant, yet everyone is still jabbering about the Confederacy and Nazis

I'm not sure but I believe the FBI background check story was on the front page of the Post. Nobody's jabbering about it because there aren't two sides to the story. The system and those administering it ####ed up. End of jabbering.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You could also understand that people have opposed the Confederate flag and the glorification of the Confederacy for decades rather than dismissing their position as merely "the collective American desire currently to be more outraged than the next person about something." This thread is nine years old and had 11 pages' worth of posts before the shooting. This is hardly a new debate; only its prominence is new.

And even that can be viewed cynically.

TV Land picked up Dukes of Hazard on June 10th of this year. What, really -- REALLY = personally affecting much of society -- changed since then? If Dylan Rood gets in a car accident on the way to the church that night, the Dukes of Hazard is still on TV Land, Apple and EBay still carry Confederate-themed games & items, and the SC statehouse grounds still fly a Confederate flag.

All such things should be reckoned as right or wrong on their own merits, not merely on the whims of fate. If all those changes had to happen, why does a Dylan Roof have to come along to make it happen? Where was the moral compass of the nation two months ago? Why was there as much societal silence as there was on the matter, recognizing that the silence was not absolute?

There's not an infinite amount of time and attention to pay to issues. I don't understand how not paying attention to an issue until an event draws your attention to it is some sort of failing. After Deepwater Horizon did you chastise people's interest in the regulations and inner workings of the former Minerals Management Service if they hadn't previously been concerned with such matters?