# The racist history of the confederate flag



## rightwinger

It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation

The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag

First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and _Plessy v. Ferguson_, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia *as a symbol of defiance** against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South,* as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 *to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.*
The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, *quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before* — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.




..


----------



## rightwinger




----------



## Correll

your thread title is a lie.

you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.


how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII? 

that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.


----------



## rightwinger

The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


>



you see a lot of photos of the klan like this.

close up, angled up, so that you cannot see that there are just a couple of klansmen and that they are outnumbered by the press and the cameramen.

if you was a more wide angle shot the reader might get the right idea, ie that the klan is a tiny joke in modern america.


----------



## rightwinger

The true purpose of the Confederate flag.........remember this negroes?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place



why is that photo in black and white?

oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.

sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> The true purpose of the Confederate flag.........remember this negroes?



not likely. most of them today weren't born there. as i was not. and you.

ancient history by american standards.


----------



## OKTexas

These bullshit side shows are really getting old, this has nothing to do with current politics.


----------



## SuperDemocrat

Everything is taken out of context...meaning has been twisted...Democratic Party was pro slavery.   Would this make the Democratic Party a symbol of hate? 

Did you know that immigration is directly related to slavery?   After white plantation owners lost their cheap labor they wen west and imported cheap Mexican workers who could afford to work for nothing.   This continues today under the guise of "amnesty" and work permits for high tech jobs.   That is the legacy of slavery we should talk about.


----------



## rightwinger




----------



## Correll

OKTexas said:


> These bullshit side shows are really getting old, this has nothing to do with current politics.




i love how they like to dredge up this old stuff, and then they have the nerve to whine at us, if we mention the way the gop fought against slavery and segregation. 

what is good for the goose, is not good for the gander, in dem world.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


>



what year were you born rightwinger?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
Click to expand...

 
Why do you think they chose the confederate flag as a symbol of their counter-protest against civil rights?

What was this guy trying to say?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> These bullshit side shows are really getting old, this has nothing to do with current politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i love how they like to dredge up this old stuff, and then they have the nerve to whine at us, if we mention the way the gop fought against slavery and segregation.
> 
> what is good for the goose, is not good for the gander, in dem world.
Click to expand...

 
THIS is the reason people resent the confederate flag


----------



## rightwinger

OKTexas said:


> These bullshit side shows are really getting old, this has nothing to do with current politics.


 
These photos have EVERYTHING to do with the current protest against the flag

THIS is why that flag is hated so much by blacks


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what year were you born rightwinger?
Click to expand...

 
I remember these protests


----------



## Stephanie

Here we go. last week it was?  these people live to stir up hate and division. it's NEVER ENDING. He should have just called us all Nxxxers like Obama did.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think they chose the confederate flag as a symbol of their counter-protest against civil rights?
> 
> What was this guy trying to say?
Click to expand...


did* they*?

looks like one guy, on the spur of the moment. 

he doesn't even have a flag pole.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> These bullshit side shows are really getting old, this has nothing to do with current politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These photos have EVERYTHING to do with the current protest against the flag
> 
> THIS is why that flag is hated so much by blacks
Click to expand...


bullshit. the blacks of the day had more important things to worry about.

the blacks of today have been told to hate it by their lib leaders.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what year were you born rightwinger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember these protests
Click to expand...



really? did you watch them front your mommies lap on the black and white tv? is it your earliest memory?

i don't remember any of that. it was ancient history by the time i because aware of the larger outside world.


----------



## rightwinger




----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think they chose the confederate flag as a symbol of their counter-protest against civil rights?
> 
> What was this guy trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did* they*?
> 
> looks like one guy, on the spur of the moment.
> 
> he doesn't even have a flag pole.
Click to expand...

 
What message was he presenting?
Why did he choose to brazenly hold THAT flag as Civil Rights marchers went past?


----------



## Stephanie

Democrat motto: Never let a good crisis or dead bodies go to waste

USE them to further your HATEFUL political agenda


----------



## OKTexas

rightwinger said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> These bullshit side shows are really getting old, this has nothing to do with current politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These photos have EVERYTHING to do with the current protest against the flag
> 
> THIS is why that flag is hated so much by blacks
Click to expand...


Actually this is why the left is hated so much, the protest against the flag are a political invention of the left to attempt exploit the blood of innocent people to continue to divide Americans for political gain. There have been many threads posted form the left with this same theme, most have been move out of politics, as this one should be, it's nothing but leftist divisive propaganda.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


>



actually, not so much.

slavery was not a result of the civil war, and very few blacks fought it the war.


a descendant of union soldiers might have something to complain about.

of course those soldiers, the ones that lived, were part of the american society that put the civil war behind them and healed the nation's wounds.

and their children's children's children do not have the moral authority to undo those choices.


----------



## rightwinger

Stephanie said:


> Democrat motto: Never let a good crisis or dead bodies go to waste
> 
> USE them to further your HATEFUL political agenda


 
What is HATEFUL about wanting an offensive flag to be taken down in a time of grief?


----------



## SuperDemocrat

Does this mean that the Dukes of hazard is now a racists show?  If so, this is not the America I want to be a part of because the Dukes of hazard was awesome.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, not so much.
> 
> slavery was not a result of the civil war, and very few blacks fought it the war.
> 
> 
> a descendant of union soldiers might have something to complain about.
> 
> of course those soldiers, the ones that lived, were part of the american society that put the civil war behind them and healed the nation's wounds.
> 
> and their children's children's children do not have the moral authority to undo those choices.
Click to expand...

 
That flag was used to violently ensure the institution of slavery would last forever

Thankfully, it lost


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.


Lets see a link. I know of a possible few anecdotal example of individual soldiers showing the flag on branches and such temporarily. I could find no unit that flew it into a battle and hence, fought under it. But maybe you have a source.


----------



## SuperDemocrat

I bet some liberal on this thread will randomly approach a conservative and ask the guy why he supports the confederacy.  That guy will just wonder what the fuck is he talking about.


----------



## OKTexas

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat motto: Never let a good crisis or dead bodies go to waste
> 
> USE them to further your HATEFUL political agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is HATEFUL about wanting an offensive flag to be taken down in a time of grief?
Click to expand...


If it's so damned offensive, why do you leftist keep posting photos of it?


----------



## mikegriffith1

This is sad. A flag is an inanimate object and cannot control who uses it and why they use it. The flag of choice at most KKK rallies is the Stars and Stripes, as anyone can confirm by Googling images of KKK meetings. See, for example:

Klansmen holding American flags at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Montgomery Alabama. Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection

The Real Flag Of The Ku Klux Klan - KKK

The Confederate constitution, FYI, allowed for the admission of free states--yes, free states--to the Confederacy and banned the overseas slave trade. At least two-thirds of Southern families held no slaves. There were as many free blacks in the South as there were in the North, if not more. Thousands of blacks served in the Confederate army as combat soldiers. The Confederate government showed far more respect for freedom of the press and citizens' civil liberties than did the U.S. government. 

Black Confederates

Surprising Facts About the Confederacy


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is sad. A flag is an inanimate object and cannot control who uses it and why they use it. The flag of choice at most KKK rallies is the Stars and Stripes, as anyone can confirm by Googling images of KKK meetings. See, for example:
> 
> Klansmen holding American flags at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Montgomery Alabama. Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection
> 
> The Real Flag Of The Ku Klux Klan - KKK
> 
> The Confederate constitution, FYI, allowed for the admission of free states--yes, free states--to the Confederacy and banned the overseas slave trade. At least two-thirds of Southern families held no slaves. There were as many free blacks in the South as there were in the North, if not more. Thousands of blacks served in the Confederate army as combat soldiers. The Confederate government showed far more respect for freedom of the press and citizens' civil liberties than did the U.S. government.
> 
> Black Confederates
> 
> Surprising Facts About the Confederacy


The Confederate Constitution was nearly identical to ours with the exception that it guarantees the institution of slavery
Almost a second amendment for slavery


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think they chose the confederate flag as a symbol of their counter-protest against civil rights?
> 
> What was this guy trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did* they*?
> 
> looks like one guy, on the spur of the moment.
> 
> he doesn't even have a flag pole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What message was he presenting?
> Why did he choose to brazenly hold THAT flag as Civil Rights marchers went past?
Click to expand...


at a guess, probably trying to claim that the entire south was with him in opposing them.

why do you think some us military units sometimes flew the flag in WWII?


----------



## Agit8r

What is commonly referred to as the "Confederate Flag" is really the flag used by some militias organized by the briefly-lived Confederate state government of Tennessee (Though a squarer version was used later by the army of Northern Virginia).

The real flag of the CSA looks just like the present-day flag of Georgia, but without the Seal of Georgia.

 

It is worth noting the irony that the same Confederate government in Tennessee passed a law to confiscate privately owned firearms, in order to further their war effort.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think they chose the confederate flag as a symbol of their counter-protest against civil rights?
> 
> What was this guy trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did* they*?
> 
> looks like one guy, on the spur of the moment.
> 
> he doesn't even have a flag pole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What message was he presenting?
> Why did he choose to brazenly hold THAT flag as Civil Rights marchers went past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at a guess, probably trying to claim that the entire south was with him in opposing them.
> 
> why do you think some us military units sometimes flew the flag in WWII?
Click to expand...

Good god......did you ever see the Jim Crow south?

Do you know how many white southerners joined the picket lines?
Next to zero

How many of those units were integrated?  Zero


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Confederate Flag history is the Democrat Party History.

Thanks, Rightwinger


----------



## Pogo

CrusaderFrank said:


> Confederate Flag history is the Democrat Party History.
> 
> Thanks, Rightwinger



That must be why the DP won all those Southern electoral votes in 1860, right?

Oh wait...


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think they chose the confederate flag as a symbol of their counter-protest against civil rights?
> 
> What was this guy trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did* they*?
> 
> looks like one guy, on the spur of the moment.
> 
> he doesn't even have a flag pole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What message was he presenting?
> Why did he choose to brazenly hold THAT flag as Civil Rights marchers went past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at a guess, probably trying to claim that the entire south was with him in opposing them.
> 
> why do you think some us military units sometimes flew the flag in WWII?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good god......did you ever see the Jim Crow south?
> 
> Do you know how many white southerners joined the picket lines?
> Next to zero
> 
> How many of those units were integrated?  Zero
Click to expand...



how many of any units were integrated in wwii?

what message were those southerns in wwii, who flew the flag trying to send?


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see a link. I know of a possible few anecdotal example of individual soldiers showing the flag on branches and such temporarily. I could find no unit that flew it into a battle and hence, fought under it. But maybe you have a source.
Click to expand...


wikepedia has some stuff on it.


----------



## gipper

This is another non-issue ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.


The flag is the divisive element. It represents the greatest and most costly division in American history.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> The flag is the divisive element. It represents the greatest and most costly division in American history.
Click to expand...

and so in your small mind that means it must be censored.  How is that American?  

You of all people, our beloved statist court jester should know imposing censorship is not freedom, but the opposite...but then again, maybe you don't.

...and thanks to your beloved Dishonest Abe for creating the most divisive event in American history.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> The flag is the divisive element. It represents the greatest and most costly division in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and so in your small mind that means it must be censored.  How is that American?
> 
> You of all people, our beloved statist court jester should know imposing censorship is not freedom, but the opposite...but then again, maybe you don't.
> 
> ...and thanks to your beloved Dishonest Abe for creating the most divisive event in American history.
Click to expand...

Nobody is censoring the confederate flag. You are just doing your usual deflecting from reality and embellishing a talking point because you know you have lost the debate. Reasonable minds are winning out over rw rhetoric tinged with hate. What will you people do if the mood continues and the countries weariness of hate progresses to the point that the top method of indoctrination into rw causes is neutralized and rejected. Without the doomsday and hatred mantra's you got between nothing and very little in the way of political attraction. Just a history of failures and transparent bullshit.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.


 
Evidently it is an issue

It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
Click to expand...



Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?


----------



## guno

Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was _the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution_. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.

Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:

This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.

And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:

As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.

One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?


Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> The flag is the divisive element. It represents the greatest and most costly division in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and so in your small mind that means it must be censored.  How is that American?
> 
> You of all people, our beloved statist court jester should know imposing censorship is not freedom, but the opposite...but then again, maybe you don't.
> 
> ...and thanks to your beloved Dishonest Abe for creating the most divisive event in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is censoring the confederate flag. You are just doing your usual deflecting from reality and embellishing a talking point because you know you have lost the debate. Reasonable minds are winning out over rw rhetoric tinged with hate. What will you people do if the mood continues and the countries weariness of hate progresses to the point that the top method of indoctrination into rw causes is neutralized and rejected. Without the doomsday and hatred mantra's you got between nothing and very little in the way of political attraction. Just a history of failures and transparent bullshit.
Click to expand...

You might want to look up the definition of censor because apparently you do not know what it means.


----------



## Correll

guno said:


> Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was _the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution_. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.
> 
> Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:
> 
> This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.
> 
> And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:
> 
> As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.
> 
> One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?
> 
> 
> Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy



jeez dude, it's the 21st century. what's with this whining about the 19th?


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
Click to expand...


Leftnutter...it is a non-issue made to look like a real issue to easily fool dummies like you.


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
Click to expand...

Why are you still making that  claim? You still haven't backed it up. Some southern boys pulled out some confederate flags a couple of times and perhaps only once in WWII. The only photo of it being used is of a soldier tying a small flag to a tree branch at Okinawa. No unit ever fought under that flag.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Correll said:


> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.




And somehow, I get the feeling that you have many, many, many books over this very important flag at home.

Are they also cum-stained?

I might make a poll about this.

Now, back to the OP: the facts about the creation and the INTENT of the confederate flags (yes, plural) are, just as rightwinger wrote, amazingly simple.

Just as the facts about Hitler's appropriation of the Hakenkreuz (Swastika) are amazingly simple.

And in both cases, revisionists like you are furiously swimming against the tide.

But facts are facts.

One of the biggest mistakes that the North made following the Civil War was to allow the South to retain any of the remnants and trappings of the Confederacy. This is a mistake that was not repeated at the end of the WWII.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
Click to expand...



Well, that was stupid of you.

BW photography is still being used TODAY.

Weak sauce, especially for a hardcore revisionist like you.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Correll said:


> actually, not so much.
> 
> *slavery was not a result of the civil war,* and very few blacks fought it the war.
> 
> 
> a descendant of union soldiers might have something to complain about.
> 
> of course those soldiers, the ones that lived, were part of the american society that put the civil war behind them and healed the nation's wounds.
> 
> and their children's children's children do not have the moral authority to undo those choices.



No, it was the CAUSE of the Civil War.

Nice try.

I see you learned well from David Duke.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Its hard to imagine numb nut conservatives actually believing they  are of a superior race...are you kidding me...gees just take a look at that Correll dude...totally a hot mess of half baked bigot beliefs...clearly an inferior poltroon...


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
Click to expand...

 provide a link and we can talk about it


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat motto: Never let a good crisis or dead bodies go to waste
> 
> USE them to further your HATEFUL political agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is HATEFUL about wanting an offensive flag to be taken down in a time of grief?
Click to expand...


This question will only make sense to people who actually care about other human beings and also to people who do not hate black people.

For people like Stephanie, this question will make no sense at all.


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you still making that  claim? You still haven't backed it up. Some southern boys pulled out some confederate flags a couple of times and perhaps only once in WWII. The only photo of it being used is of a soldier tying a small flag to a tree branch at Okinawa. No unit ever fought under that flag.
Click to expand...



i told you you could find some stuff on wikepedia.

the uss columbia fought under the flag, and the flag was raised over shuri castle by "Rebel company" after teh battle of okinawa.

why do you think they called themselves "rebel company"?

so you think they were planning on "rebelling"?


----------



## Correll

Statistikhengst said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And somehow, I get the feeling that you have many, many, many books over this very important flag at home.
> 
> Are they also cum-stained?
> 
> I might make a poll about this.
> 
> Now, back to the OP: the facts about the creation and the INTENT of the confederate flags (yes, plural) are, just as rightwinger wrote, amazingly simple.
> 
> Just as the facts about Hitler's appropriation of the Hakenkreuz (Swastika) are amazingly simple.
> 
> And in both cases, revisionists like you are furiously swimming against the tide.
> 
> But facts are facts.
> 
> One of the biggest mistakes that the North made following the Civil War was to allow the South to retain any of the remnants and trappings of the Confederacy. This is a mistake that was not repeated at the end of the WWII.
Click to expand...



wow. that is a much longer post that normal for you.

thanks.

of course it in no way addressed anything  in my post of course. that is for lesser minds.

nope, nothing but a big pile of race baiting insults.


the thread title is the "history" of the flag.

he jumps from the creation of the flag to a hundred years later.

i pointed that out, and he had no explanation. you of course, lol, of course, did not address any point either.

asshole.


----------



## rightwinger

rightwinger said:


> The true purpose of the Confederate flag.........remember this negroes?


 
What possible reason could there be for this man to waive the confederate flag in front of blacks protesting murder and denial of the right to vote?

What is the symbolism of this flag?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> provide a link and we can talk about it
Click to expand...


Are you serious?

fine.

Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"


Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?

What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> provide a link and we can talk about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> fine.
> 
> Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> "During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?
Click to expand...

 
Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"

After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro

When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> provide a link and we can talk about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> fine.
> 
> Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> "During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
Click to expand...



your answer does not explain why you left it out.

your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.

by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war. 

they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa. 

the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that. 

i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you still making that  claim? You still haven't backed it up. Some southern boys pulled out some confederate flags a couple of times and perhaps only once in WWII. The only photo of it being used is of a soldier tying a small flag to a tree branch at Okinawa. No unit ever fought under that flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i told you you could find some stuff on wikepedia.
> 
> the uss columbia fought under the flag, and the flag was raised over shuri castle by "Rebel company" after teh battle of okinawa.
> 
> why do you think they called themselves "rebel company"?
> 
> so you think they were planning on "rebelling"?
Click to expand...


Those are anecdotal examples. The use was not authorized or official. In the case of Shuri Castle my reading is that  they were  ordered to take it down. There is no record of the USS Columbia CL 56 being authorized to fly the flag, although it is easy to believe that the Navy turned a blind eye since it was named after Columbia, SC.
Telling someone to go find something at Wikipedia is bullshit. There are numerous articles at Wikipedia on this topic. Don't expect people to just believe your claims. Your the guy that doesn't know Kodachome was invented in the '30's and Polaroid color instamatic cameras could be bought in the early 60's.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> provide a link and we can talk about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> fine.
> 
> Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> "During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
Click to expand...

 
By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK

Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was

It is no longer a proper symbol


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## gipper

TyroneSlothrop said:


>


Those quotes are true, but of course fail to inform and are designed to deceive.  Are you deceived?

Lincoln said words very similar to those by Stephens, but you might not know that if you attended a state run school and failed to educate yourself after completing your statist schooling.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

gipper said:


> Those quotes are true, but of course fail to inform and are designed to deceive.  Are you deceived?
> 
> Lincoln said words very similar to those by Stephens, but you might not know that if you attended a state run school and failed to educate yourself after completing your statist schooling.



I am Conrad Hilton III and you are a peasant...


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you still making that  claim? You still haven't backed it up. Some southern boys pulled out some confederate flags a couple of times and perhaps only once in WWII. The only photo of it being used is of a soldier tying a small flag to a tree branch at Okinawa. No unit ever fought under that flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i told you you could find some stuff on wikepedia.
> 
> the uss columbia fought under the flag, and the flag was raised over shuri castle by "Rebel company" after teh battle of okinawa.
> 
> why do you think they called themselves "rebel company"?
> 
> so you think they were planning on "rebelling"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are anecdotal examples. The use was not authorized or official. In the case of Shuri Castle my reading is that  they were  ordered to take it down. There is no record of the USS Columbia CL 56 being authorized to fly the flag, although it is easy to believe that the Navy turned a blind eye since it was named after Columbia, SC.
> Telling someone to go find something at Wikipedia is bullshit. There are numerous articles at Wikipedia on this topic. Don't expect people to just believe your claims. Your the guy that doesn't know Kodachome was invented in the '30's and Polaroid color instamatic cameras could be bought in the early 60's.
Click to expand...



lol!

it's use was not authorized or official?

that's your answer?

it happened. some american units fought under the confederate battle flag as i said.

it is part of the 20th rise in popularity of hte confederate battle flag.

the soldiers at shuri castle were ordered to take it down, but not because it was racist, or treasonous, but because soldiers from all over the us took part in the battle..

the man that ordered it down was the son of  a confederate general.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Agit8r said:


> What is commonly referred to as the "Confederate Flag" is really the flag used by some militias organized by the briefly-lived Confederate state government of Tennessee (Though a squarer version was used later by the army of Northern Virginia).
> 
> The real flag of the CSA looks just like the present-day flag of Georgia, but without the Seal of Georgia.
> 
> View attachment 42965
> 
> It is worth noting the irony that the same Confederate government in Tennessee passed a law to confiscate privately owned firearms, in order to further their war effort.



Well, well, that doesn't sound very 2nd-amendmenty!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

guno said:


> Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was _the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution_. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.
> 
> Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:
> 
> This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.
> 
> And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:
> 
> As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.
> 
> One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?
> 
> 
> Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy




Ahhh, the "Cornerstone Speech", one that racists in the South either try to hide, or parade around with, depending on how extreme they are.


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently it is an issue
> 
> It was an issue enough when someone demanded the confederate flag fly at the statehouse to show those civil rights protestors just how SC really feels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you still making that  claim? You still haven't backed it up. Some southern boys pulled out some confederate flags a couple of times and perhaps only once in WWII. The only photo of it being used is of a soldier tying a small flag to a tree branch at Okinawa. No unit ever fought under that flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i told you you could find some stuff on wikepedia.
> 
> the uss columbia fought under the flag, and the flag was raised over shuri castle by "Rebel company" after teh battle of okinawa.
> 
> why do you think they called themselves "rebel company"?
> 
> so you think they were planning on "rebelling"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are anecdotal examples. The use was not authorized or official. In the case of Shuri Castle my reading is that  they were  ordered to take it down. There is no record of the USS Columbia CL 56 being authorized to fly the flag, although it is easy to believe that the Navy turned a blind eye since it was named after Columbia, SC.
> Telling someone to go find something at Wikipedia is bullshit. There are numerous articles at Wikipedia on this topic. Don't expect people to just believe your claims. Your the guy that doesn't know Kodachome was invented in the '30's and Polaroid color instamatic cameras could be bought in the early 60's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> it's use was not authorized or official?
> 
> that's your answer?
> 
> it happened. some american units fought under the confederate battle flag as i said.
> 
> it is part of the 20th rise in popularity of hte confederate battle flag.
> 
> the soldiers at shuri castle were ordered to take it down, but not because it was racist, or treasonous, but because soldiers from all over the us took part in the battle..
> 
> the man that ordered it down was the son of  a confederate general.
Click to expand...

You are misrepresenting the meaning of "fighting under...". A company of soldiers or more accurately, an individual or group of soldiers pulling out a flag and displaying it on the battlefield after the battle is not anything like fighting under the banner of flag.
Crews of individual APC's and even Huey's or other vehicles or aircraft in Vietnam sometimes displayed flags or even affixed decals or art depicting the confederate flag. No one complained, but that is not the same as a unit fighting under the flag.

In any case, the photo of the confederate flag at Shuri appears to be a photo shop. An older photo shows the soldier displaying an American flag. The whole story came from someone relating a story told by a officer killed shortly after the incident. A murky story to say the least.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Correll said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was _the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution_. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.
> 
> Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:
> 
> This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.
> 
> And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:
> 
> As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.
> 
> One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?
> 
> 
> Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeez dude, it's the 21st century. what's with this whining about the 19th?
Click to expand...



It's historical fact. Just like the "Southern State Strategy", which you continue to deny.

Troll.


----------



## Ravi

Correll said:


> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.


No it wasn't.


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


>




Ain't that just about right...


----------



## thanatos144

It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.


----------



## Ravi

thanatos144 said:


> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.


Currently championed by cons.


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.


 
Seems only Republicans still are flying it


----------



## thanatos144

Ravi said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Currently championed by cons.
Click to expand...

Nope. Championed by ignorant neo confederate libertarians douche nozzles. Even most democrats are smart enough to distance themselves from their own history. Doesn't change the fact that confederates were democrats. Let the libertarian retards fly the flag with their ignorance of history. We are a free nation. That still wont make its history different. It represents DEMOCRAT values of slave owning and elitism.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> 
> 
> provide a link and we can talk about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> fine.
> 
> Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> "During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
Click to expand...


by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.

but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us

these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.

it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.

i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.

and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.

not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.


you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> provide a link and we can talk about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> fine.
> 
> Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> "During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
Click to expand...

 
Dukes of Hazard again?

I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems only Republicans still are flying it
Click to expand...



i doubt that. 

i'm sure there are poor democrats in the south who fly it, and despite the fact that dems have nothing but contempt for them, still vote for the party that they think will represent their economic interests.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> fine.
> 
> Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> "During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
Click to expand...



why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?

any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> fine.
> 
> Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> "During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
Click to expand...



Smart people can be embarrassed.

Those with the IQ of a tin can? Less so...


----------



## Correll

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people can be embarrassed.
> 
> Those with the IQ of a tin can? Less so...
Click to expand...



any comment of the fact that i have demonstrated that the rise of the flag in the 20th begain in wwii, and NOT 10 years later in the resistance to desegregation?

rhetorical question.

i know you are not hear to discuss the topic, but just to be an asshole.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you see a lot of photos of the klan like this.
> 
> close up, angled up, so that you cannot see that there are just a couple of klansmen and that they are outnumbered by the press and the cameramen.
> 
> if you was a more wide angle shot the reader might get the right idea, ie that the klan is a tiny joke in modern america.
Click to expand...

Yes...quite a small minority.....now.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
Click to expand...

Ah...so old doesn't matter anymore?  Like when posters talk about the OLD Democrats supporting slavery and segregation?   Let's not talk about it anymore because it's  "old"?    (Isn't that what history is?)


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still making that  claim? You still haven't backed it up. Some southern boys pulled out some confederate flags a couple of times and perhaps only once in WWII. The only photo of it being used is of a soldier tying a small flag to a tree branch at Okinawa. No unit ever fought under that flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i told you you could find some stuff on wikepedia.
> 
> the uss columbia fought under the flag, and the flag was raised over shuri castle by "Rebel company" after teh battle of okinawa.
> 
> why do you think they called themselves "rebel company"?
> 
> so you think they were planning on "rebelling"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are anecdotal examples. The use was not authorized or official. In the case of Shuri Castle my reading is that  they were  ordered to take it down. There is no record of the USS Columbia CL 56 being authorized to fly the flag, although it is easy to believe that the Navy turned a blind eye since it was named after Columbia, SC.
> Telling someone to go find something at Wikipedia is bullshit. There are numerous articles at Wikipedia on this topic. Don't expect people to just believe your claims. Your the guy that doesn't know Kodachome was invented in the '30's and Polaroid color instamatic cameras could be bought in the early 60's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> it's use was not authorized or official?
> 
> that's your answer?
> 
> it happened. some american units fought under the confederate battle flag as i said.
> 
> it is part of the 20th rise in popularity of hte confederate battle flag.
> 
> the soldiers at shuri castle were ordered to take it down, but not because it was racist, or treasonous, but because soldiers from all over the us took part in the battle..
> 
> the man that ordered it down was the son of  a confederate general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misrepresenting the meaning of "fighting under...". A company of soldiers or more accurately, an individual or group of soldiers pulling out a flag and displaying it on the battlefield after the battle is not anything like fighting under the banner of flag.
> Crews of individual APC's and even Huey's or other vehicles or aircraft in Vietnam sometimes displayed flags or even affixed decals or art depicting the confederate flag. No one complained, but that is not the same as a unit fighting under the flag.
> 
> In any case, the photo of the confederate flag at Shuri appears to be a photo shop. An older photo shows the soldier displaying an American flag. The whole story came from someone relating a story told by a officer killed shortly after the incident. A murky story to say the least.
Click to expand...



you are quibbling over semantics.

these american soldiers and sailors fought and fought bravely, and they flew the flag of their regional homeland, which has for their entire lives been part of the greater whole of the us.

they were member of the us army and navy, and proud of their southern roots and heritage.


----------



## Correll

Ravi said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't.
Click to expand...



care to explain why you think that?


----------



## Stephanie

Look at these two Racist. figures they are Democrats eh

SNIP:


* Hillary Clinton Refusing To Talk About ’92 Clinton-Gore Confederate Campaign Button… *






More on this story.

Via The Blaze:

It’s unclear if the Clinton-Gore Confederate flag campaign button that has been prominent on social media was an official part of their 1992 presidential campaign.

And Hillary Clinton isn’t clarifying, nor is her team responding to questions about her husband honoring the flag as Arkansas governor in 1987.

TheBlaze left phone and email messages with the Clinton campaign Monday inquiring whether the button, and other similar designs sold on eBay, was part of the official campaign of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

TheBlaze also asked if the former Arkansas first lady opposed now or opposed then an act signed by her husband honoring the Confederate flag. The Clinton campaign did not respond to either question.

all of it here:
Hillary Clinton Refusing To Talk About 92 Clinton-Gore Confederate Campaign Button Weasel Zippers


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you see a lot of photos of the klan like this.
> 
> close up, angled up, so that you cannot see that there are just a couple of klansmen and that they are outnumbered by the press and the cameramen.
> 
> if you was a more wide angle shot the reader might get the right idea, ie that the klan is a tiny joke in modern america.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...quite a small minority.....now.
Click to expand...



oh, yes, if this was the 1920s i would be the first to admit that the klan was a serious threat.

from what i've read in history books of course. way before i was born. well before my parents were born.


----------



## bodecea

Stephanie said:


> Here we go. last week it was?  these people live to stir up hate and division. it's NEVER ENDING. He should have just called us all Nxxxers like Obama did.


Yes...we can tell this upsets you, Stephanie...like the murder of 9 churchgoers and the sexual abuse of 5 year old girls by their teenage brother does not bother you.


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?
> 
> any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?
Click to expand...

You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...so old doesn't matter anymore?  Like when posters talk about the OLD Democrats supporting slavery and segregation?   Let's not talk about it anymore because it's  "old"?    (Isn't that what history is?)
Click to expand...



lets talk about history. lets not ignore the history before that, nor the history after that.

history is not a snapshot.


----------



## bodecea

SuperDemocrat said:


> Does this mean that the Dukes of hazard is now a racists show?  If so, this is not the America I want to be a part of because the Dukes of hazard was awesome.


The Dukes of Hazzard was a Southern parody...making fun of the good ole' boy image of the South that is stuck in the 50s  & 60s.  You want to hold THAT up as serious representation?


----------



## bodecea

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is sad. A flag is an inanimate object and cannot control who uses it and why they use it. The flag of choice at most KKK rallies is the Stars and Stripes, as anyone can confirm by Googling images of KKK meetings. See, for example:
> 
> Klansmen holding American flags at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Montgomery Alabama. Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection
> 
> The Real Flag Of The Ku Klux Klan - KKK
> 
> The Confederate constitution, FYI, allowed for the admission of free states--yes, free states--to the Confederacy and banned the overseas slave trade. At least two-thirds of Southern families held no slaves. There were as many free blacks in the South as there were in the North, if not more. Thousands of blacks served in the Confederate army as combat soldiers. The Confederate government showed far more respect for freedom of the press and citizens' civil liberties than did the U.S. government.
> 
> Black Confederates
> 
> Surprising Facts About the Confederacy


So...it's ok to fly the Nazi flag too because it's just an inanimate object.....an inanimate object, I might add, that represented something that lasted 3 times as long as the traitorous Confederacy.


----------



## bodecea

CrusaderFrank said:


> Confederate Flag history is the Democrat Party History.
> 
> Thanks, Rightwinger


You might want to direct your complaint to Correll...he'll say it's "old".


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?
> 
> any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
Click to expand...



what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?

was it because it was treasonous?

was it because it was hateful?

was it because it was racist?


----------



## PredFan

...


----------



## thanatos144

Correll said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?
> 
> any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
Click to expand...

Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?


----------



## guno

It appears, then, that the words issued by the state’s former attorney general, James Louis Petigru, in 1860 after South Carolina seceded from the Union, still hold true today: “South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.”


----------



## Ravi

Correll said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain why you think that?
Click to expand...

A few flew the flag. On erected one on a battle field and after three days it was ordered taken down. By the end of the war it no longer in evidence.

Wtf does any of that have to do with what the con flag symbolizes?


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that the Dukes of hazard is now a racists show?  If so, this is not the America I want to be a part of because the Dukes of hazard was awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard was a Southern parody...making fun of the good ole' boy image of the South that is stuck in the 50s  & 60s.  You want to hold THAT up as serious representation?
Click to expand...



nope. 

my point, in case you have missed it before, was that the show presented the flag as a harmless symbol of southern pride and heritage.

if the flag was perceived as rw claims the american viewing audience would have never accepted that.

instead, the dukes, in their third season hit the number two slot.

that is the exact opposite of rejection.


----------



## bodecea

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> The flag is the divisive element. It represents the greatest and most costly division in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and so in your small mind that means it must be censored.  How is that American?
> 
> You of all people, our beloved statist court jester should know imposing censorship is not freedom, but the opposite...but then again, maybe you don't.
> 
> ...and thanks to your beloved Dishonest Abe for creating the most divisive event in American history.
Click to expand...

Censored, maybe not...except the government has no business flying it.  Any private citizen who wants to fly it should go right ahead....and we will know them for what they are.


----------



## Correll

Ravi said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain why you think that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few flew the flag. On erected one on a battle field and after three days it was ordered taken down. By the end of the war it no longer in evidence.
> 
> Wtf does any of that have to do with what the con flag symbolizes?
Click to expand...



those american fighting men flew the flag as a symbol of regional pride.

not as a symbol of treason or hatred.

that's what it has to do with it.


----------



## Correll

thanatos144 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?
> 
> any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
Click to expand...





the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.

a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.

he stated why he though it should be lowered.

it was not because it was treasonous.

it was not because it was hateful.

it was not because it was racist.

it was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was _the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution_. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.
> 
> Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:
> 
> This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.
> 
> And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:
> 
> As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.
> 
> One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?
> 
> 
> Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeez dude, it's the 21st century. what's with this whining about the 19th?
Click to expand...




thanatos144 said:


> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.


How is it a Democrat flag?  Explain.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> provide a link and we can talk about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> fine.
> 
> Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> "During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
Click to expand...

Wow...your revisionist history is.................very creative.


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> fine.
> 
> Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> "During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
Click to expand...

Maybe they don't get parody.


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> fine.
> 
> Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> "During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS _Columbia_ flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare"
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out the flying of the confederate battle flag during wwii by southern troops and units?
> 
> What message do you think they were trying to send with those flags?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow...your revisionist history is.................very creative.
Click to expand...



which part(s) are  you denying?

are you denying that southern men fought bravely and valiantly in wwii?


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe they don't get parody.
Click to expand...



wow. that was bigoted.


----------



## thanatos144

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was _the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution_. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.
> 
> Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:
> 
> This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.
> 
> And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:
> 
> As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.
> 
> One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?
> 
> 
> Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeez dude, it's the 21st century. what's with this whining about the 19th?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a Democrat flag?  Explain.
Click to expand...

Because you ignorant ass confederates were democrats . Democrats were the slave owners. Democrats were the creators of the KKK. Democrats created Jim Crow laws. This is the history of the party your stupid ass supports. I know you refuse to believe it because they told you they support your right to fuck who you want as long as you just vote for them. The thing is I dont recall republicans saying you cant fuck who you want as long as there is equal consent?


----------



## Correll

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was _the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution_. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.
> 
> Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:
> 
> This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.
> 
> And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:
> 
> As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.
> 
> One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?
> 
> 
> Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeez dude, it's the 21st century. what's with this whining about the 19th?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a Democrat flag?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you ignorant ass confederates were democrats . Democrats were the slave owners. Democrats were the creators of the KKK. Democrats created Jim Crow laws. This is the history of the party your stupid ass supports. I know you refuse to believe it because they told you they support your right to fuck who you want as long as you just vote for them. The think is I dont recall republicans saying you cant fuck who you want as long as there is equal consent?
Click to expand...



i disagree with you on the current meaning of the flag, but i'm not going to play dumb and ask why you think what you do.

it's obvious to anyone with any knowledge of teh civil war and segregation.


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?
> 
> any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.
> 
> a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.
> 
> he stated why he though it should be lowered.
> 
> it was not because it was treasonous.
> 
> it was not because it was hateful.
> 
> it was not because it was racist.
> 
> It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.
Click to expand...

At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still making that  claim? You still haven't backed it up. Some southern boys pulled out some confederate flags a couple of times and perhaps only once in WWII. The only photo of it being used is of a soldier tying a small flag to a tree branch at Okinawa. No unit ever fought under that flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i told you you could find some stuff on wikepedia.
> 
> the uss columbia fought under the flag, and the flag was raised over shuri castle by "Rebel company" after teh battle of okinawa.
> 
> why do you think they called themselves "rebel company"?
> 
> so you think they were planning on "rebelling"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are anecdotal examples. The use was not authorized or official. In the case of Shuri Castle my reading is that  they were  ordered to take it down. There is no record of the USS Columbia CL 56 being authorized to fly the flag, although it is easy to believe that the Navy turned a blind eye since it was named after Columbia, SC.
> Telling someone to go find something at Wikipedia is bullshit. There are numerous articles at Wikipedia on this topic. Don't expect people to just believe your claims. Your the guy that doesn't know Kodachome was invented in the '30's and Polaroid color instamatic cameras could be bought in the early 60's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> it's use was not authorized or official?
> 
> that's your answer?
> 
> it happened. some american units fought under the confederate battle flag as i said.
> 
> it is part of the 20th rise in popularity of hte confederate battle flag.
> 
> the soldiers at shuri castle were ordered to take it down, but not because it was racist, or treasonous, but because soldiers from all over the us took part in the battle..
> 
> the man that ordered it down was the son of  a confederate general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misrepresenting the meaning of "fighting under...". A company of soldiers or more accurately, an individual or group of soldiers pulling out a flag and displaying it on the battlefield after the battle is not anything like fighting under the banner of flag.
> Crews of individual APC's and even Huey's or other vehicles or aircraft in Vietnam sometimes displayed flags or even affixed decals or art depicting the confederate flag. No one complained, but that is not the same as a unit fighting under the flag.
> 
> In any case, the photo of the confederate flag at Shuri appears to be a photo shop. An older photo shows the soldier displaying an American flag. The whole story came from someone relating a story told by a officer killed shortly after the incident. A murky story to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are quibbling over semantics.
> 
> these american soldiers and sailors fought and fought bravely, and they flew the flag of their regional homeland, which has for their entire lives been part of the greater whole of the us.
> 
> they were member of the us army and navy, and proud of their southern roots and heritage.
Click to expand...

Odd that they would be stupid enough to think their heritage is wrapped up in a flag representing only 4 years...and 4 years of loser treason against the U.S. at that.   That Southern education of the time, I guess.


----------



## bodecea

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?
> 
> any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?
> 
> 
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.
> 
> a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.
> 
> he stated why he though it should be lowered.
> 
> it was not because it was treasonous.
> 
> it was not because it was hateful.
> 
> it was not because it was racist.
> 
> It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
> Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.
Click to expand...

But apparently his "one case" is the end all and be all of his argument, because he keeps droning on about it.


----------



## bodecea

thanatos144 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?
> 
> any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
Click to expand...

How are the Democrats connected to the Confederacy?  Explain.


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that the Dukes of hazard is now a racists show?  If so, this is not the America I want to be a part of because the Dukes of hazard was awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard was a Southern parody...making fun of the good ole' boy image of the South that is stuck in the 50s  & 60s.  You want to hold THAT up as serious representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope.
> 
> my point, in case you have missed it before, was that the show presented the flag as a harmless symbol of southern pride and heritage.
> 
> if the flag was perceived as rw claims the american viewing audience would have never accepted that.
> 
> instead, the dukes, in their third season hit the number two slot.
> 
> that is the exact opposite of rejection.
Click to expand...

The flag just added to the overall image of southern buffoonery. Dopey people doing dopey stuff. An updated version of The Beverly Hillbillies.


----------



## Ravi

Correll said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain why you think that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few flew the flag. On erected one on a battle field and after three days it was ordered taken down. By the end of the war it no longer in evidence.
> 
> Wtf does any of that have to do with what the con flag symbolizes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those american fighting men flew the flag as a symbol of regional pride.
> 
> not as a symbol of treason or hatred.
> 
> that's what it has to do with it.
Click to expand...

Sez you. No matter what their reasoning, they were deluded and shouldn't have been allowed to fly them the traitors.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that the Dukes of hazard is now a racists show?  If so, this is not the America I want to be a part of because the Dukes of hazard was awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard was a Southern parody...making fun of the good ole' boy image of the South that is stuck in the 50s  & 60s.  You want to hold THAT up as serious representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope.
> 
> my point, in case you have missed it before, was that the show presented the flag as a harmless symbol of southern pride and heritage.
> 
> if the flag was perceived as rw claims the american viewing audience would have never accepted that.
> 
> instead, the dukes, in their third season hit the number two slot.
> 
> that is the exact opposite of rejection.
Click to expand...

And my point is...why would any intelligent, educated person want THAT flag as a symbol?  It represents a small 4 year period of history...a period of treason and destruction and loss.   The more appropriate symbol would be Edward Ruffin wrapping himself in it and blowing his brains out after the Confederacy fell.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain why you think that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few flew the flag. On erected one on a battle field and after three days it was ordered taken down. By the end of the war it no longer in evidence.
> 
> Wtf does any of that have to do with what the con flag symbolizes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those american fighting men flew the flag as a symbol of regional pride.
> 
> not as a symbol of treason or hatred.
> 
> that's what it has to do with it.
Click to expand...

Then fly their state flags....rather than a treason flag.  No wonder they were told to take it down.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow...your revisionist history is.................very creative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which part(s) are  you denying?
> 
> are you denying that southern men fought bravely and valiantly in wwii?
Click to expand...

Of course they did.  Are you arguing they needed a treason flag to do so?


----------



## thanatos144

bodecea said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?
> 
> any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are the Democrats connected to the Confederacy?  Explain.
Click to expand...

History dummy. They were all democrats.


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?
> 
> any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?
> 
> 
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.
> 
> a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.
> 
> he stated why he though it should be lowered.
> 
> it was not because it was treasonous.
> 
> it was not because it was hateful.
> 
> it was not because it was racist.
> 
> It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
> Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.
Click to expand...



link?


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe they don't get parody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wow. that was bigoted.
Click to expand...

Only to those who are too stupid to get parody.  Are you owning it?


----------



## Camp

For years the military has rejected potential recruits with confederate flag tattoos. Can the military be more clear about it's view of the confederate flag?


----------



## Ravi

LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## bodecea

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was _the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution_. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.
> 
> Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:
> 
> This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.
> 
> And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:
> 
> As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.
> 
> One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?
> 
> 
> Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeez dude, it's the 21st century. what's with this whining about the 19th?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a Democrat flag?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you ignorant ass* confederates were democrats *. Democrats were the slave owners. Democrats were the creators of the KKK. Democrats created Jim Crow laws. This is the history of the party your stupid ass supports. I know you refuse to believe it because they told you they support your right to fuck who you want as long as you just vote for them. The thing is I dont recall republicans saying you cant fuck who you want as long as there is equal consent?
Click to expand...


Who's the ignorant one?  The Democrat Party did not win one Southern state in the last election before the Civil War.....Not One.

So, how can you claim that the Confederates were Democrats?  They left the party BEFORE they left the Union.  

You aren't very bright and don't seem to be getting any brighter.


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> i told you you could find some stuff on wikepedia.
> 
> the uss columbia fought under the flag, and the flag was raised over shuri castle by "Rebel company" after teh battle of okinawa.
> 
> why do you think they called themselves "rebel company"?
> 
> so you think they were planning on "rebelling"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are anecdotal examples. The use was not authorized or official. In the case of Shuri Castle my reading is that  they were  ordered to take it down. There is no record of the USS Columbia CL 56 being authorized to fly the flag, although it is easy to believe that the Navy turned a blind eye since it was named after Columbia, SC.
> Telling someone to go find something at Wikipedia is bullshit. There are numerous articles at Wikipedia on this topic. Don't expect people to just believe your claims. Your the guy that doesn't know Kodachome was invented in the '30's and Polaroid color instamatic cameras could be bought in the early 60's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> it's use was not authorized or official?
> 
> that's your answer?
> 
> it happened. some american units fought under the confederate battle flag as i said.
> 
> it is part of the 20th rise in popularity of hte confederate battle flag.
> 
> the soldiers at shuri castle were ordered to take it down, but not because it was racist, or treasonous, but because soldiers from all over the us took part in the battle..
> 
> the man that ordered it down was the son of  a confederate general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misrepresenting the meaning of "fighting under...". A company of soldiers or more accurately, an individual or group of soldiers pulling out a flag and displaying it on the battlefield after the battle is not anything like fighting under the banner of flag.
> Crews of individual APC's and even Huey's or other vehicles or aircraft in Vietnam sometimes displayed flags or even affixed decals or art depicting the confederate flag. No one complained, but that is not the same as a unit fighting under the flag.
> 
> In any case, the photo of the confederate flag at Shuri appears to be a photo shop. An older photo shows the soldier displaying an American flag. The whole story came from someone relating a story told by a officer killed shortly after the incident. A murky story to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are quibbling over semantics.
> 
> these american soldiers and sailors fought and fought bravely, and they flew the flag of their regional homeland, which has for their entire lives been part of the greater whole of the us.
> 
> they were member of the us army and navy, and proud of their southern roots and heritage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that they would be stupid enough to think their heritage is wrapped up in a flag representing only 4 years...and 4 years of loser treason against the U.S. at that.   That Southern education of the time, I guess.
Click to expand...



your bigoted spin on the issue is not the point. that fact that you disagree with them is not the point.

they were members of the us army and navy and proud of their southern roots and heritage.


----------



## bodecea

Ravi said:


> LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????


Yep...over and over again.  They're Boss Hogg wannabees, I guess.


----------



## thanatos144

bodecea said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was _the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution_. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.
> 
> Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:
> 
> This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.
> 
> And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:
> 
> As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.
> 
> One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?
> 
> 
> Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeez dude, it's the 21st century. what's with this whining about the 19th?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a Democrat flag?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you ignorant ass* confederates were democrats *. Democrats were the slave owners. Democrats were the creators of the KKK. Democrats created Jim Crow laws. This is the history of the party your stupid ass supports. I know you refuse to believe it because they told you they support your right to fuck who you want as long as you just vote for them. The thing is I dont recall republicans saying you cant fuck who you want as long as there is equal consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's the ignorant one?  The Democrat Party did not win one Southern state in the last election before the Civil War.....Not One.
> 
> So, how can you claim that the Confederates were Democrats?  They left the party BEFORE they left the Union.
> 
> You aren't very bright and don't seem to be getting any brighter.
Click to expand...

Because they were democrats you idiot. Good fucking lord Learn your parties history!


----------



## bodecea

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would i be embarrassed by an argument that you have been completely unable to touch at all?
> 
> any comment of the fact that the flag's rise in teh 20th was associated with wwii and not the resistance to desegregation as you claimed, supports my view and the view of 1979 american and not yours?
> 
> 
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are the Democrats connected to the Confederacy?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History dummy. They were all democrats.
Click to expand...

Nope...the South left the Democrat Party in the election of 1860...BEFORE they became the Confederacy.  The Democrats, with Stephen Douglas at their candidate, didn't win one Southern state in 1860.  You can pretend all you want, but you cannot change historical fact.


----------



## thanatos144

bodecea said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are the Democrats connected to the Confederacy?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History dummy. They were all democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...the South left the Democrat Party in the election of 1860...BEFORE they became the Confederacy.  The Democrats, with Stephen Douglas at their candidate, didn't win one Southern state in 1860.  You can pretend all you want, but you cannot change historical fact.
Click to expand...

Lmao you are so ignorant

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ravi

bodecea said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...over and over again.  They're Boss Hogg wannabees, I guess.
Click to expand...

That's like saying alcoholism is great because Trailer Park Boys.

These people are fucked in the head.


----------



## bodecea

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are the Democrats connected to the Confederacy?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History dummy. They were all democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...the South left the Democrat Party in the election of 1860...BEFORE they became the Confederacy.  The Democrats, with Stephen Douglas at their candidate, didn't win one Southern state in 1860.  You can pretend all you want, but you cannot change historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lmao you are so ignorant
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the 1860 election results.....1860 Presidential Election

Note that the Democrats ONLY won Missouri.  The "Southern Democrats" was a totally new party with their own candidate...not the same party as the Democrat Party that nominated Stephen Douglas.

You need to work on your American History before you call someone else "ignorant", eh?


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that the Dukes of hazard is now a racists show?  If so, this is not the America I want to be a part of because the Dukes of hazard was awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard was a Southern parody...making fun of the good ole' boy image of the South that is stuck in the 50s  & 60s.  You want to hold THAT up as serious representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope.
> 
> my point, in case you have missed it before, was that the show presented the flag as a harmless symbol of southern pride and heritage.
> 
> if the flag was perceived as rw claims the american viewing audience would have never accepted that.
> 
> instead, the dukes, in their third season hit the number two slot.
> 
> that is the exact opposite of rejection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag just added to the overall image of southern buffoonery. Dopey people doing dopey stuff. An updated version of The Beverly Hillbillies.
Click to expand...


hatred and treason are not the stuff of "Buffoonery".

the main characters were presented in a positive light, and they were the ones who named their car the general lee, and painted the huge battle flag on the top of their 1969 dodge charger.

the two main character were described in the theme song as "never meaning no harm".

this is impossible if rw's claims about the "racist history" of the flag were correct.

it fits is perfectly with my view of the flag as a harmless symbol of regional pride.


----------



## Correll

Ravi said:


> LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????




link to where i said that.


----------



## Correll

Ravi said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your thread title is a lie.
> 
> you claim to be discussing the history of the flag, but you discuss it's beginning and then jump forward almost one hundred years.
> 
> 
> how could you jump over it's use by southern units in WWII?
> 
> that was a huge part of it's development from a historical battle flag to a symbol of the south.
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain why you think that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few flew the flag. On erected one on a battle field and after three days it was ordered taken down. By the end of the war it no longer in evidence.
> 
> Wtf does any of that have to do with what the con flag symbolizes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those american fighting men flew the flag as a symbol of regional pride.
> 
> not as a symbol of treason or hatred.
> 
> that's what it has to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sez you. No matter what their reasoning, they were deluded and shouldn't have been allowed to fly them the traitors.
Click to expand...



"traitors"?

they were fighting the enemy of the usa in as bloody a battle a war as the world has ever seen. 

that is the exact opposite of traitors.

it is not what i sez.

it is documented historical fact.

for you to try to dishonor their memory by calling them traitors is incredible.


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been unable to provide evidence that the confederate battle flag was used as you are implying and hence the idea that WWII gave some big boost in popularity or historical significance to the flag is based on nothing more than your imagination. . You have used an example of one company displaying it after a battle during the larger battle of Okinawa. That and one ship, CL 56 the USS Columbia, named after Columbia, SC, that may have displayed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.
> 
> a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.
> 
> he stated why he though it should be lowered.
> 
> it was not because it was treasonous.
> 
> it was not because it was hateful.
> 
> it was not because it was racist.
> 
> It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
> Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link?
Click to expand...

criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> what reasons were used in the order to remove the flag from the castle?
> 
> was it because it was treasonous?
> 
> was it because it was hateful?
> 
> was it because it was racist?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.
> 
> a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.
> 
> he stated why he though it should be lowered.
> 
> it was not because it was treasonous.
> 
> it was not because it was hateful.
> 
> it was not because it was racist.
> 
> It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
> Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle
Click to expand...



a video?

i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems only Republicans still are flying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt that.
> 
> i'm sure there are poor democrats in the south who fly it, and despite the fact that dems have nothing but contempt for them, still vote for the party that they think will represent their economic interests.
Click to expand...

 
I only see republicans defending it and insisting it fly

Can you point to Democratic representatives that still support the Confederate flag?


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the citizens of the places said they wanted it gone. Why do you ignore the confederate democrat history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.
> 
> a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.
> 
> he stated why he though it should be lowered.
> 
> it was not because it was treasonous.
> 
> it was not because it was hateful.
> 
> it was not because it was racist.
> 
> It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
> Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a video?
> 
> i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.
Click to expand...

Here it is on youtube

youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls

It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.


----------



## rightwinger

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again....no black soldiers were asked their opinion
> Is the point you are trying to make...."We used to be able to use it to celebrate our subjugation of blacks....why can't we now?"
> 
> After those soldiers returned from WWII, that flag became a symbol of the KKK. It was used as a reminder of the proper place for the negro
> 
> When Civil Rights put an end to segregation, southern states began to resurrect the confederate flag as a symbol that they still support segregation from the "negroes"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe they don't get parody.
Click to expand...

 
I just in my right mind can't imagine why anyone would use The Dukes of Hazard as a justification for a state to fly the confederate flag. If I was a proud southerner, The Dukes of Hazard would be a reason I'd want the damned thing taken down

It just boggles my mind


----------



## Delta4Embassy

rightwinger said:


> It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation
> 
> The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag
> 
> First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
> After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
> But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
> Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and _Plessy v. Ferguson_, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
> In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia *as a symbol of defiance** against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South,* as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
> Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 *to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.*
> The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, *quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before* — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
> Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..



Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight. 

A flag isn't the problem.


----------



## Ravi

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.
> 
> a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.
> 
> he stated why he though it should be lowered.
> 
> it was not because it was treasonous.
> 
> it was not because it was hateful.
> 
> it was not because it was racist.
> 
> It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.
> 
> 
> 
> At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
> Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a video?
> 
> i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is on youtube
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls
> 
> It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.
Click to expand...

Wow, I should have known it was fake. These nutters will stoop to anything.


----------



## Camp

Ravi said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
> Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a video?
> 
> i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is on youtube
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls
> 
> It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, I should have known it was fake. These nutters will stoop to anything.
Click to expand...

Ya, while claiming to defend the honor of imagined and created Marines that raised a confederate flag at Okinawa they trash the genuine guys and flag raising of the Stars and Stripes by the guys who really did it.


----------



## Ravi

Camp said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> 
> 
> criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a video?
> 
> i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is on youtube
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls
> 
> It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, I should have known it was fake. These nutters will stoop to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya, while claiming to defend the honor of imagined and created Marines that raised a confederate flag at Okinawa they trash the genuine guys and flag raising of the Stars and Stripes by the guys who really did it.
Click to expand...

Sick.


----------



## rightwinger

Delta4Embassy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation
> 
> The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag
> 
> First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
> After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
> But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
> Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and _Plessy v. Ferguson_, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
> In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia *as a symbol of defiance** against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South,* as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
> Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 *to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.*
> The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, *quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before* — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
> Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.
> 
> A flag isn't the problem.
Click to expand...

 
Obviously it is


----------



## Delta4Embassy

rightwinger said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation
> 
> The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag
> 
> First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
> After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
> But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
> Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and _Plessy v. Ferguson_, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
> In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia *as a symbol of defiance** against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South,* as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
> Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 *to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.*
> The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, *quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before* — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
> Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.
> 
> A flag isn't the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously it is
Click to expand...


It's obvious it's been co-opted by racists. That's not the same thing, nor grounds for punitive measures against it. 

If the South wanted to make a flag specificly to express racist ideology it'd be like that South Park one with white people and a hanging black man on a gallows. 

As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.


----------



## rightwinger

Delta4Embassy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation
> 
> The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag
> 
> First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
> After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
> But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
> Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and _Plessy v. Ferguson_, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
> In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia *as a symbol of defiance** against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South,* as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
> Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 *to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.*
> The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, *quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before* — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
> Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.
> 
> A flag isn't the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious it's been co-opted by racists. That's not the same thing, nor grounds for punitive measures against it.
> 
> If the South wanted to make a flag specificly to express racist ideology it'd be like that South Park one with white people and a hanging black man on a gallows.
> 
> As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.
Click to expand...

 
What is intrinsically racist is it represents a country that was formed to ensure the institution of slavery is preserved


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Rather buy the flags for racists to fly them overtly and loudly. Then I know where they are. Better an overt racist flying a flag than a secret racist you never know about.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Correll said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people can be embarrassed.
> 
> Those with the IQ of a tin can? Less so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> any comment of the fact that i have demonstrated that the rise of the flag in the 20th begain in wwii, and NOT 10 years later in the resistance to desegregation?
> 
> rhetorical question.
> 
> i know you are not hear to discuss the topic, but just to be an asshole.
Click to expand...

"you are not hear"


Hmmmmmm...

A nice English course for you, maybe...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ravi said:


> LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????


Really, you can't make that shit up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

bodecea said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens,even as he explained in clear language that his government’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.” Apparently some would have us ignore his plainly spoken assurance that:
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us is the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was _the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution_. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.
> 
> Far from an afterthought, overshadowed by larger ruminations on taxes or trade policy, Stephens took great pains to distinguish the centrality of racism and slavery in the South, from that of all past governmental systems, including the United States:
> 
> This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…Those at the North…assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails.
> 
> And far from a one-off anomaly, Stephens repeated the arguments from his “cornerstone” speech a month later when speaking to the Virginia secession convention. Prior to his address, the Virginia delegates had rejected secession by a 2:1 margin, before finally reversing course and voting to leave the union. Stephens was dispatched so as to buttress that choice and make the case for why voters in the state should ratify their lawmakers’ decision in an upcoming plebiscite. In doing so, Stephens dug deeply into his bag of incendiary and racist rhetoric to affect the outcome. During his speech he articulated the principle of white supremacy as central to the ideology of the Confederate government:
> 
> As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both…The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal…hence, so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws…It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal.
> 
> One wonders, exactly how many times does the Vice-President of a Government have to say the same thing regarding his administration’s philosophy (and that of his “nation”), each time without correction or censure from his superiors or governmental colleagues, before we believe him? And when that Vice-President himself insists that other issues like trade tariffs had already been adequately resolved to the satisfaction of the southern states—as he did in his November 14, 1860 address to the Georgia legislature—who but a liar or a fool can continue to insist that it was matters such as this that animated the Confederate cause?
> 
> 
> Tim Wise Heritage of Hate Dylann Roof White Supremacy and the Truth About the Confederacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeez dude, it's the 21st century. what's with this whining about the 19th?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a democrat flag that represent all the evil democrats do. Period and end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a Democrat flag?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you ignorant ass* confederates were democrats *. Democrats were the slave owners. Democrats were the creators of the KKK. Democrats created Jim Crow laws. This is the history of the party your stupid ass supports. I know you refuse to believe it because they told you they support your right to fuck who you want as long as you just vote for them. The thing is I dont recall republicans saying you cant fuck who you want as long as there is equal consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's the ignorant one?  The Democrat Party did not win one Southern state in the last election before the Civil War.....Not One.
> 
> So, how can you claim that the Confederates were Democrats?  They left the party BEFORE they left the Union.
> 
> You aren't very bright and don't seem to be getting any brighter.
Click to expand...

This is historically absolutely correct.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are anecdotal examples. The use was not authorized or official. In the case of Shuri Castle my reading is that  they were  ordered to take it down. There is no record of the USS Columbia CL 56 being authorized to fly the flag, although it is easy to believe that the Navy turned a blind eye since it was named after Columbia, SC.
> Telling someone to go find something at Wikipedia is bullshit. There are numerous articles at Wikipedia on this topic. Don't expect people to just believe your claims. Your the guy that doesn't know Kodachome was invented in the '30's and Polaroid color instamatic cameras could be bought in the early 60's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> it's use was not authorized or official?
> 
> that's your answer?
> 
> it happened. some american units fought under the confederate battle flag as i said.
> 
> it is part of the 20th rise in popularity of hte confederate battle flag.
> 
> the soldiers at shuri castle were ordered to take it down, but not because it was racist, or treasonous, but because soldiers from all over the us took part in the battle..
> 
> the man that ordered it down was the son of  a confederate general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are misrepresenting the meaning of "fighting under...". A company of soldiers or more accurately, an individual or group of soldiers pulling out a flag and displaying it on the battlefield after the battle is not anything like fighting under the banner of flag.
> Crews of individual APC's and even Huey's or other vehicles or aircraft in Vietnam sometimes displayed flags or even affixed decals or art depicting the confederate flag. No one complained, but that is not the same as a unit fighting under the flag.
> 
> In any case, the photo of the confederate flag at Shuri appears to be a photo shop. An older photo shows the soldier displaying an American flag. The whole story came from someone relating a story told by a officer killed shortly after the incident. A murky story to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are quibbling over semantics.
> 
> these american soldiers and sailors fought and fought bravely, and they flew the flag of their regional homeland, which has for their entire lives been part of the greater whole of the us.
> 
> they were member of the us army and navy, and proud of their southern roots and heritage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that they would be stupid enough to think their heritage is wrapped up in a flag representing only 4 years...and 4 years of loser treason against the U.S. at that.   That Southern education of the time, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your bigoted spin on the issue is not the point. that fact that you disagree with them is not the point.
> 
> they were members of the us army and navy and proud of their southern roots and heritage.
Click to expand...

A flag that represents 4 years of treachery and LOSING is supposed to be an important Southern heritage?

Stick with your Dukes of Hazzard argument. It was better.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

Correll said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link to where i said that.
Click to expand...

Well gee, how many times have you posted about the Dukes of Hazzard, numbnut?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

Correll said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain why you think that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few flew the flag. On erected one on a battle field and after three days it was ordered taken down. By the end of the war it no longer in evidence.
> 
> Wtf does any of that have to do with what the con flag symbolizes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those american fighting men flew the flag as a symbol of regional pride.
> 
> not as a symbol of treason or hatred.
> 
> that's what it has to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sez you. No matter what their reasoning, they were deluded and shouldn't have been allowed to fly them the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "traitors"?
> 
> they were fighting the enemy of the usa in as bloody a battle a war as the world has ever seen.
> 
> that is the exact opposite of traitors.
> 
> it is not what i sez.
> 
> it is documented historical fact.
> 
> for you to try to dishonor their memory by calling them traitors is incredible.
Click to expand...

Oh, but they absolutely were traitors to the Union. Just as so many fucked-up cons are traitors to our present Union.

Gee, I am so surprised.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.
> 
> a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.
> 
> he stated why he though it should be lowered.
> 
> it was not because it was treasonous.
> 
> it was not because it was hateful.
> 
> it was not because it was racist.
> 
> It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.
> 
> 
> 
> At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
> Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a video?
> 
> i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is on youtube
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls
> 
> It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.
Click to expand...

So, we are talking about another racist RWNJ lie about something that is documented history. You can present this to KKKorell, but he'll just stick his fingers in his ears.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation
> 
> The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag
> 
> First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
> After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
> But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
> Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and _Plessy v. Ferguson_, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
> In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia *as a symbol of defiance** against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South,* as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
> Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 *to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.*
> The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, *quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before* — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
> Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.
> 
> A flag isn't the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious it's been co-opted by racists. That's not the same thing, nor grounds for punitive measures against it.
> 
> If the South wanted to make a flag specificly to express racist ideology it'd be like that South Park one with white people and a hanging black man on a gallows.
> 
> As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is intrinsically racist is it represents a country that was formed to ensure the institution of slavery is preserved
Click to expand...

BINGO.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Angel

Delta4Embassy said:


> As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.


Well, the people in this picture may not be racists, but I don't see any blacks in the crowd.


----------



## rightwinger

Bill Angel said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the people in this picture may not be racists, but I don't see any blacks in the crowd.
> View attachment 43064
Click to expand...


Looks like they won't be able to buy those flags at Walmart anymore


----------



## gipper

bodecea said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another non-issued ginned up by trouble makers designed to divide Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> The flag is the divisive element. It represents the greatest and most costly division in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and so in your small mind that means it must be censored.  How is that American?
> 
> You of all people, our beloved statist court jester should know imposing censorship is not freedom, but the opposite...but then again, maybe you don't.
> 
> ...and thanks to your beloved Dishonest Abe for creating the most divisive event in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Censored, maybe not...except the government has no business flying it.  Any private citizen who wants to fly it should go right ahead....and we will know them for what they are.
Click to expand...

The government has no business doing most of what it does.  

Removing a flag is the least of our problems, but it does help to further divide Americans and divert our attention from much bigger problems government is the cause of.


----------



## MaryL

Unsurprisingly we aren't surprised. The Confederacy was all about states rights, and those rights were about preserving the rich white land owners's right to own other people. Not a nobel cause. Given that a lot of slave owning southerners years earlier  signed their names to the Constitution. "All men are created equal" wasn't taken literally.


----------



## whitehall

rightwinger said:


> It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation
> 
> The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag
> 
> First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
> After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
> But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
> Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and _Plessy v. Ferguson_, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
> In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia *as a symbol of defiance** against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South,* as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
> Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 *to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.*
> The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, *quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before* — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
> Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..


"First sewn in 1861"? That was a good two hundred years after slavery was established in the new world. The last Northern state to outlaw slavery was New Jersey and it was only about ten years before the "Confederate flag was sewn". How do we judge the other two hundred years of slavery? Do we forgive New Jersey for the other two hundred years and condemn the Confederacy for four years? How do we judge maniacs who commit murder and wave the Stars and Stripes or worse how do we judge mass murders like the jihad Army Major who killed more people on behalf of Mohammed?


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the people in this picture may not be racists, but I don't see any blacks in the crowd.
> View attachment 43064
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like they won't be able to buy those flags at Walmart anymore
Click to expand...



Those goddamned Librulz running Walmart!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

MaryL said:


> Unsurprisingly we aren't surprised. The Confederacy was all about states rights, and *those rights were about preserving the rich white land owners's right to own other people. *Not a nobel cause. Given that a lot of slave owning southerners years earlier  signed their names to the Constitution. "All men are created equal" wasn't taken literally.




Not just "other people".

Black people.

Indentured servitude of non-blacks was long a thing of the past.


----------



## Politico

To clarify again for all you idiot Millennials. The Southern Cross is not the Confederate flag. The Stars and Bars was. Put down your iPhones and pick up a fucking book.


----------



## Camp

Politico said:


> To clarify again for all you idiot Millennials. The Southern Cross is not the Confederate flag. The Stars and Bars was. Put down your iPhones and pick up a fucking book.


The history of the confederate flag is confusing because it changed over time. The Southern Cross was incorporated into the flag in the final two of the three versions according to this chapter of the Daughters of the Confederacy and other sources like Wiki. 

txudc.org/flags.html


----------



## mcguiver1000

Bullshit... It is not a symbol of racism...
If the confederate side won the civil war then we would be having this discussion over the Stars and Stripes. It is still a symbol of our history and has nothing to do with hatred, racism or bigotry. It is our history and like all, good and bad needs to be remembered and embraced for what it is. A flag of our history and nothing else.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger

mcguiver1000 said:


> Bullshit... It is not a symbol of racism...
> If the confederate side won the civil war then we would be having this discussion over the Stars and Stripes. It is still a symbol of our history and has nothing to do with hatred, racism or bigotry. It is our history and like all, good and bad needs to be remembered and embraced for what it is. A flag of our history and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is the flag of a racist society

A society formed for the sole purpose of ensuring the right to slavery.


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> mcguiver1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit... It is not a symbol of racism...
> If the confederate side won the civil war then we would be having this discussion over the Stars and Stripes. It is still a symbol of our history and has nothing to do with hatred, racism or bigotry. It is our history and like all, good and bad needs to be remembered and embraced for what it is. A flag of our history and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> It is the flag of a racist society
> 
> A society formed for the sole purpose of ensuring the right to slavery.
Click to expand...

It is a symbol of democrats and their history of being pro slavery, Jim crow laws , segregation and pro KKK. Al Gores own father filibustered the 1964 civil rights act.


----------



## Ravi

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mcguiver1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit... It is not a symbol of racism...
> If the confederate side won the civil war then we would be having this discussion over the Stars and Stripes. It is still a symbol of our history and has nothing to do with hatred, racism or bigotry. It is our history and like all, good and bad needs to be remembered and embraced for what it is. A flag of our history and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> It is the flag of a racist society
> 
> A society formed for the sole purpose of ensuring the right to slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a symbol of democrats and their history of being pro slavery, Jim crow laws , segregation and pro KKK. Al Gores own father filibustered the 1964 civil rights act.
Click to expand...

Then no one will be sad to see it go.


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the context of the question is the flag raised over castle shuri after the battle of okinawa.
> 
> a general who was the son of a confederate general ordered it lowered after several days.
> 
> he stated why he though it should be lowered.
> 
> it was not because it was treasonous.
> 
> it was not because it was hateful.
> 
> it was not because it was racist.
> 
> It was because americans from all over took part the battle, not just southerners.
> 
> 
> 
> At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
> Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a video?
> 
> i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is on youtube
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls
> 
> It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.
Click to expand...


what reason did the new england officer give for complaining?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your answer does not explain why you left it out.
> 
> your answer does not explain why they were flying it. they did not raise the flag over a captured castle to send a message to blacks.
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was fading from living memory. the soldiers in question were the great grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in that war.
> 
> they were expressing regional pride, as part of a the greater whole of the usa.
> 
> the grandchildren of the union soldiers who fought along side them knew that.
> 
> i have seen no evidence that anyone was bothered by this display at that time, or at any time after that, until very recently as demonstrated by the dukes of hazzard nationwide acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe they don't get parody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just in my right mind can't imagine why anyone would use The Dukes of Hazard as a justification for a state to fly the confederate flag. If I was a proud southerner, The Dukes of Hazard would be a reason I'd want the damned thing taken down
> 
> It just boggles my mind
Click to expand...


rw, we obviously disagree on this issue.

but all you are doing by constantly misrepresenting my position is dodging the issue.

i have very clearly explained that my point in bringing up the dukes is not as a justification for the flag, but as historical evidence that your claims on the way flag has "Always" been seen is not true. repeatedly

it is not credible that you cannot grasp this difference.

that being covered.

you have claimed that what has changed since the 80s is the "sharp spike" in racist hates groups.

you specifically mentioned david duke.

i pointed out the hate groups are tiny, and that david duke was humiliated in that presidential election.

do you have anything new to say to justify your claim that the flag can ONLY be seen as a symbol of racism and treason and hatred, when it has been shown that that is not true?

or do you have some other reason to explain why the america of 1979 thought of it as a harmless symbol of regional pride?

or are you willing to admit that your stated reasons for your belief have been shown to be false, and you are willing to admit your real reason for your hatred of the south?


----------



## Correll

Delta4Embassy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation
> 
> The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag
> 
> First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
> After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
> But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
> Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and _Plessy v. Ferguson_, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
> In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia *as a symbol of defiance** against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South,* as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
> Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 *to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.*
> The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, *quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before* — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
> Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.
> 
> A flag isn't the problem.
Click to expand...



in another thread he was pretty clear that


Statistikhengst said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the time of WWII, the flag was a fading memory of a time past
> It was not part of southern state flags, it was not flying from statehouses in the south, it was not used by the KKK
> 
> Things changed after WWII. Blacks came back from the war and demanded equal rights. That flag was brought front and center as a message to blacks what their proper place in society was
> 
> It is no longer a proper symbol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by the time of wwii, the civil war was a fading memory.
> 
> but the south was as alive and well as ever, as a strong regional part of the us
> 
> these soldiers were from that region, and were proud of their service and wanted their service and victories to honor their homes and ancestors.
> 
> it is interesting that they choose a battle flag of the confederacy instead of the national flag of the csa.
> 
> i am sure that the fighting men of the south, who did this wrote home and told their family and friends of what they were doing, and those that didn't certainly did when they got home.
> 
> and that is the beginning of the rise in popularity of the confederate battle flag in the 20th century.
> 
> not as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but as a symbol of regional pride as part of a greater whole during the world war two.
> 
> 
> you can see the easy acceptance that this received from the rest of the country, a generation later, when the dukes of hazzard presented the flag that way, and it was completely unremarked on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dukes of Hazard again?
> 
> I thought you southerners would be embarassed by that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people can be embarrassed.
> 
> Those with the IQ of a tin can? Less so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> any comment of the fact that i have demonstrated that the rise of the flag in the 20th begain in wwii, and NOT 10 years later in the resistance to desegregation?
> 
> rhetorical question.
> 
> i know you are not hear to discuss the topic, but just to be an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "you are not hear"
> 
> 
> Hmmmmmm...
> 
> A nice English course for you, maybe...
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...


wow. you pointed out a typo!!!

what a good day for you!

this is far beyond your normal...contribution?

no.

participation!

this is far beyond your normal participation!

good for you!


----------



## Correll

Statistikhengst said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> it's use was not authorized or official?
> 
> that's your answer?
> 
> it happened. some american units fought under the confederate battle flag as i said.
> 
> it is part of the 20th rise in popularity of hte confederate battle flag.
> 
> the soldiers at shuri castle were ordered to take it down, but not because it was racist, or treasonous, but because soldiers from all over the us took part in the battle..
> 
> the man that ordered it down was the son of  a confederate general.
> 
> 
> 
> You are misrepresenting the meaning of "fighting under...". A company of soldiers or more accurately, an individual or group of soldiers pulling out a flag and displaying it on the battlefield after the battle is not anything like fighting under the banner of flag.
> Crews of individual APC's and even Huey's or other vehicles or aircraft in Vietnam sometimes displayed flags or even affixed decals or art depicting the confederate flag. No one complained, but that is not the same as a unit fighting under the flag.
> 
> In any case, the photo of the confederate flag at Shuri appears to be a photo shop. An older photo shows the soldier displaying an American flag. The whole story came from someone relating a story told by a officer killed shortly after the incident. A murky story to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you are quibbling over semantics.
> 
> these american soldiers and sailors fought and fought bravely, and they flew the flag of their regional homeland, which has for their entire lives been part of the greater whole of the us.
> 
> they were member of the us army and navy, and proud of their southern roots and heritage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that they would be stupid enough to think their heritage is wrapped up in a flag representing only 4 years...and 4 years of loser treason against the U.S. at that.   That Southern education of the time, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your bigoted spin on the issue is not the point. that fact that you disagree with them is not the point.
> 
> they were members of the us army and navy and proud of their southern roots and heritage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A flag that represents 4 years of treachery and LOSING is supposed to be an important Southern heritage?
> 
> Stick with your Dukes of Hazzard argument. It was better.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...



that is your spin on the issue.

do you really think that us soldiers fighting in okinowa were treasonous?


----------



## Skull Pilot

It's a brightly colored rag just like any other flag nothing more.

It's people who are racist not flags


----------



## Correll

Statistikhengst said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link to where i said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well gee, how many times have you posted about the Dukes of Hazzard, numbnut?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...


my point about the dukes was clearly not that the confederate flag is cool because of the dukes of hazzard.

does it seem odd to you that you have to lie in order to even pretend to yourself that you have scored a "point" against me?

what with you being so smart and all...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Correll said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are misrepresenting the meaning of "fighting under...". A company of soldiers or more accurately, an individual or group of soldiers pulling out a flag and displaying it on the battlefield after the battle is not anything like fighting under the banner of flag.
> Crews of individual APC's and even Huey's or other vehicles or aircraft in Vietnam sometimes displayed flags or even affixed decals or art depicting the confederate flag. No one complained, but that is not the same as a unit fighting under the flag.
> 
> In any case, the photo of the confederate flag at Shuri appears to be a photo shop. An older photo shows the soldier displaying an American flag. The whole story came from someone relating a story told by a officer killed shortly after the incident. A murky story to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are quibbling over semantics.
> 
> these american soldiers and sailors fought and fought bravely, and they flew the flag of their regional homeland, which has for their entire lives been part of the greater whole of the us.
> 
> they were member of the us army and navy, and proud of their southern roots and heritage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that they would be stupid enough to think their heritage is wrapped up in a flag representing only 4 years...and 4 years of loser treason against the U.S. at that.   That Southern education of the time, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your bigoted spin on the issue is not the point. that fact that you disagree with them is not the point.
> 
> they were members of the us army and navy and proud of their southern roots and heritage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A flag that represents 4 years of treachery and LOSING is supposed to be an important Southern heritage?
> 
> Stick with your Dukes of Hazzard argument. It was better.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is your spin on the issue.
> 
> do you really think that us soldiers fighting in okinowa were treasonous?
Click to expand...



You need lots of attention, now don't you. Are you an orphan?

It's already been proven that the confederate flag did not fly at Okinawa, turdball.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link to where i said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well gee, how many times have you posted about the Dukes of Hazzard, numbnut?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my point about the dukes was clearly not that the confederate flag is cool because of the dukes of hazzard.
> 
> does it seem odd to you that you have to lie in order to even pretend to yourself that you have scored a "point" against me?
> 
> what with you being so smart and all...
Click to expand...

 
The Dukes of Hazard is a TV show...entertainment

They are free to display the Rebel Flag in a depiction of southern boys as much as any other TV show is free to display the Nazi Flag in a depiction of 1940s Germany, or a burning cross in a depiction of the KKK


----------



## Correll

Statistikhengst said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain why you think that?
> 
> 
> 
> A few flew the flag. On erected one on a battle field and after three days it was ordered taken down. By the end of the war it no longer in evidence.
> 
> Wtf does any of that have to do with what the con flag symbolizes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those american fighting men flew the flag as a symbol of regional pride.
> 
> not as a symbol of treason or hatred.
> 
> that's what it has to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sez you. No matter what their reasoning, they were deluded and shouldn't have been allowed to fly them the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "traitors"?
> 
> they were fighting the enemy of the usa in as bloody a battle a war as the world has ever seen.
> 
> that is the exact opposite of traitors.
> 
> it is not what i sez.
> 
> it is documented historical fact.
> 
> for you to try to dishonor their memory by calling them traitors is incredible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but they absolutely were traitors to the Union. Just as so many fucked-up cons are traitors to our present Union.
> 
> Gee, I am so surprised.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...



they were fighting and winning against the enemies of our nation.

that is exactly the opposite of being a traitor.

your assumption, that the flag can only mean what you want it to mean, is the issue here. 

the idea that soldiers fighting for the united states were raising that flag to show that they hated the united states makes no sense.

the idea that soldiers fighting for the united states were raising that flag to honor their homes and fathers, as a regional part of the united states makes complete sense.


----------



## Correll

Statistikhengst said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are quibbling over semantics.
> 
> these american soldiers and sailors fought and fought bravely, and they flew the flag of their regional homeland, which has for their entire lives been part of the greater whole of the us.
> 
> they were member of the us army and navy, and proud of their southern roots and heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that they would be stupid enough to think their heritage is wrapped up in a flag representing only 4 years...and 4 years of loser treason against the U.S. at that.   That Southern education of the time, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your bigoted spin on the issue is not the point. that fact that you disagree with them is not the point.
> 
> they were members of the us army and navy and proud of their southern roots and heritage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A flag that represents 4 years of treachery and LOSING is supposed to be an important Southern heritage?
> 
> Stick with your Dukes of Hazzard argument. It was better.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is your spin on the issue.
> 
> do you really think that us soldiers fighting in okinowa were treasonous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need lots of attention, now don't you. Are you an orphan?
> 
> It's already been proven that the confederate flag did not fly at Okinawa, turdball.
Click to expand...



you have the reading comprehension of a monkey. and not one of the smarter monkeys.

what did the new england officer ask to have taken down?


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least be honest enough to tell the story or myth the way it is told. An New England officer from another unit complained and the General agreed to take it down. But it is more myth than real history. The small flag in question was attached to a broom stick sized branch and implanted not at the top, but on the side of a pile of rubble. Because the photo has shown up as an American flag, the photo is considered a photo shop. No known photo of the confederate flag flying at Shuri exist.
> Correll can't even give evidence of the one case he is trying to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> criticalpast.com./video/65675052753_1st-Marine-Division_Marine-climbs-hill_American-flag-raised_Shuri-Castle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a video?
> 
> i generally dont watch linked videos. and it didn't load anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here it is on youtube
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=HTUuDFh6sls
> 
> It is obvious that the confederate flag photo is taken from this film, especially at the end. It is the same Marine in the same location in the same pose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what reason did the new england officer give for complaining?
Click to expand...

It is an alleged story aboot LTG Buckner who was killed in action a few days after Shuri. The video I posted indicates the whole story is a made up version of events. In the story it is alleged that the New England officer asked if they were now expected to sing Dixie after seeing the flag go up, but again, the video indicates the event never took place. It appears obvious that the photo of the Marine displaying the confederate flag is a photo shop of a frame taken from the film of the same Marine raising the American flag. There is no photo that shows the confederate flag flying over Shuri. Hard to believe that with all the film crews and photographers there at the time, none of them took a picture of the odd situation of a confederate flag flying on Okinawa. Remember, this was after the flag raising at Iwo Jima and would have been a big story and an important photo at the time. What makes far more sense is that the flag  LTG Buckner carried with him was returned  by a fellow Marine on his staff to his family with nice story.
You really are being a jerk by trying to mix up soldiers fighting in the Civil War with soldiers fighting in WWII.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link to where i said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well gee, how many times have you posted about the Dukes of Hazzard, numbnut?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my point about the dukes was clearly not that the confederate flag is cool because of the dukes of hazzard.
> 
> does it seem odd to you that you have to lie in order to even pretend to yourself that you have scored a "point" against me?
> 
> what with you being so smart and all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazard is a TV show...entertainment
> 
> They are free to display the Rebel Flag in a depiction of southern boys as much as any other TV show is free to display the Nazi Flag in a depiction of 1940s Germany, or a burning cross in a depiction of the KKK
Click to expand...


rw, we have gone over this repeatedly.

my point is that the nation wide acceptance of the presentation of the flag as a harmless symbol of regional pride, disproves your claim that the flag has always been seen as a symbol of treason, racism and hatred.


you have responded appropriately to that point several times.

you have tried to argue what has changed since then, ie the "Sharp rise" in hate groups, david duke specifically.


i have pointed out that they are still tiny and that david duke was humiliated in the presidential election.


moving forward, 

your view of the flag as a symbol that can ONLY mean treason, hatred and racism, has been disproven.


would you like to present another rationalization for your hatred?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Is someone arguing that the con flag is cool because the Dukes of Hazzard????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link to where i said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well gee, how many times have you posted about the Dukes of Hazzard, numbnut?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my point about the dukes was clearly not that the confederate flag is cool because of the dukes of hazzard.
> 
> does it seem odd to you that you have to lie in order to even pretend to yourself that you have scored a "point" against me?
> 
> what with you being so smart and all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazard is a TV show...entertainment
> 
> They are free to display the Rebel Flag in a depiction of southern boys as much as any other TV show is free to display the Nazi Flag in a depiction of 1940s Germany, or a burning cross in a depiction of the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rw, we have gone over this repeatedly.
> 
> my point is that the nation wide acceptance of the presentation of the flag as a harmless symbol of regional pride, disproves your claim that the flag has always been seen as a symbol of treason, racism and hatred.
> 
> 
> you have responded appropriately to that point several times.
> 
> you have tried to argue what has changed since then, ie the "Sharp rise" in hate groups, david duke specifically.
> 
> 
> i have pointed out that they are still tiny and that david duke was humiliated in the presidential election.
> 
> 
> moving forward,
> 
> your view of the flag as a symbol that can ONLY mean treason, hatred and racism, has been disproven.
> 
> 
> would you like to present another rationalization for your hatred?
Click to expand...

 
I do not believe I have presented the view that the Rebel Flag is ONLY a symbol of racism. That is not the case
The flag has a rightful place in historical contest as a symbol of the Confederacy. I have no issues with its display at battlefields, monuments or even private residences, businesses or pickup trucks

My point has been that the flag has evolved from a battle flag to a symbol of racism. Whether that is fair or not cannot be helped...the flag was pulled out as a banner for segregation and racist hate

I think South Carolina has do defense in their use of that flag. The fact is that they only chose to fly it proudly from their statehouse in 1962 as a direct insult to those fighting against segregation and for voting rights

That they now claim the flag has other meanings is not relevant


----------



## Correll

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a flag of southern heritage...but a flag of hate and subjugation
> 
> The surprisingly uncomplicated racist history of the Confederate flag
> 
> First sewn in 1861 — there were about 120 created for the war — the flag was flown by the cavalry of P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederacy's first duly appointed general, after he took Manassas, Virginia, in the first Battle of Bull Run.
> After the Civil War, the flag saw limited (and quite appropriate) use at first: It commemorated the sons of the South who died during the war.
> But never did the flag represent some amorphous concept of Southern heritage, or Southern pride, or a legacy that somehow includes everything good anyone ever did south of the Mason-Dixon line, slavery excluded.
> Fast-forward about 100 years, past thousands of lynchings in the South, past Jim Crow and _Plessy v. Ferguson_, past the state-sanctioned economic and political subjugation of black people, and beyond the New Deal that all too often gave privileges to the white working class to the specific exclusion of black people.
> In 1948, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party adopted the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia *as a symbol of defiance** against the federal government. What precisely required such defiance? The president's powers to enforce civil rights laws in the South,* as represented by the Democratic Party's somewhat progressive platform on civil rights.
> Georgia adopted its version of the flag design in 1956 *to protest the Supreme Court's ruling against segregated schools, in Brown v. Board of Education.*
> The flag first flew over the state capitol in South Carolina in 1962, a year after George Wallace raised it over the grounds of the legislature in Alabama, *quite specifically to link more aggressive efforts to integrate the South with the trigger of secession 100 years before* — namely, the storming of occupied Fort Sumter by federal troops. Fort Sumter, you might recall, is located at the mouth of Charleston Harbor.
> Opposition to civil rights legislation, to integration, to miscegenation, to social equality for black people — these are the major plot points that make up the flag's recent history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.
> 
> A flag isn't the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious it's been co-opted by racists. That's not the same thing, nor grounds for punitive measures against it.
> 
> If the South wanted to make a flag specificly to express racist ideology it'd be like that South Park one with white people and a hanging black man on a gallows.
> 
> As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is intrinsically racist is it represents a country that was formed to ensure the institution of slavery is preserved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BINGO.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...



the america of 1979 to 1985 disagreed.

can you explain that?


----------



## Correll

Statistikhengst said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unsurprisingly we aren't surprised. The Confederacy was all about states rights, and *those rights were about preserving the rich white land owners's right to own other people. *Not a nobel cause. Given that a lot of slave owning southerners years earlier  signed their names to the Constitution. "All men are created equal" wasn't taken literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just "other people".
> 
> Black people.
> 
> Indentured servitude of non-blacks was long a thing of the past.
Click to expand...


good catch staat!

can't have mary thinking of slaves as "people".

it is very important to remember that they were "black people".


can you explain why?


----------



## Ravi

Correll said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unsurprisingly we aren't surprised. The Confederacy was all about states rights, and *those rights were about preserving the rich white land owners's right to own other people. *Not a nobel cause. Given that a lot of slave owning southerners years earlier  signed their names to the Constitution. "All men are created equal" wasn't taken literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just "other people".
> 
> Black people.
> 
> Indentured servitude of non-blacks was long a thing of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good catch staat!
> 
> can't have mary thinking of slaves as "people".
> 
> it is very important to remember that they were "black people".
> 
> 
> can you explain why?
Click to expand...

It was only legal for black people to be slaves in the USA.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel the same way about the southern states as you do about a piece of cloth? If not, I'd suggest you get your priorities straight.
> 
> A flag isn't the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious it's been co-opted by racists. That's not the same thing, nor grounds for punitive measures against it.
> 
> If the South wanted to make a flag specificly to express racist ideology it'd be like that South Park one with white people and a hanging black man on a gallows.
> 
> As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is intrinsically racist is it represents a country that was formed to ensure the institution of slavery is preserved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BINGO.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the america of 1979 to 1985 disagreed.
> 
> can you explain that?
Click to expand...

 
I can

Blacks in 1979 and 1985 were offended by that flag and urged it to be taken down. Their objections were ignored

Mr Dylann Root came along and once again proudly used that flag as well as the flags of South Africa and Rhodesia as a symbol of his racist leanings

We are now taking the objections of the black community seriously


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> link to where i said that.
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, how many times have you posted about the Dukes of Hazzard, numbnut?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my point about the dukes was clearly not that the confederate flag is cool because of the dukes of hazzard.
> 
> does it seem odd to you that you have to lie in order to even pretend to yourself that you have scored a "point" against me?
> 
> what with you being so smart and all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazard is a TV show...entertainment
> 
> They are free to display the Rebel Flag in a depiction of southern boys as much as any other TV show is free to display the Nazi Flag in a depiction of 1940s Germany, or a burning cross in a depiction of the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rw, we have gone over this repeatedly.
> 
> my point is that the nation wide acceptance of the presentation of the flag as a harmless symbol of regional pride, disproves your claim that the flag has always been seen as a symbol of treason, racism and hatred.
> 
> 
> you have responded appropriately to that point several times.
> 
> you have tried to argue what has changed since then, ie the "Sharp rise" in hate groups, david duke specifically.
> 
> 
> i have pointed out that they are still tiny and that david duke was humiliated in the presidential election.
> 
> 
> moving forward,
> 
> your view of the flag as a symbol that can ONLY mean treason, hatred and racism, has been disproven.
> 
> 
> would you like to present another rationalization for your hatred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe I have presented the view that the Rebel Flag is ONLY a symbol of racism. That is not the case
> The flag has a rightful place in historical contest as a symbol of the Confederacy. I have no issues with its display at battlefields, monuments or even private residences, businesses or pickup trucks
> 
> My point has been that the flag has evolved from a battle flag to a symbol of racism. Whether that is fair or not cannot be helped...the flag was pulled out as a banner for segregation and racist hate
> 
> I think South Carolina has do defense in their use of that flag. The fact is that they only chose to fly it proudly from their statehouse in 1962 as a direct insult to those fighting against segregation and for voting rights
> 
> That they now claim the flag has other meanings is not relevant
Click to expand...




you are certainly claiming now that it has only one meaning now.


teh dukes of hazzard ran AFTER the time period is which you believe the flag "evolved" into a symbol of racism.

the acceptance of the presentation of the flag in the 80s shows that that nation as a whole thought those other meanings were the primary, if not only meaning.

the "evolution" of the view of the flag by the left, occurred long after the battles against segregation and voting rights were won.

this anger and hatred from the left for the south, and their pride in their heritage has nothing to do with that.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious it's been co-opted by racists. That's not the same thing, nor grounds for punitive measures against it.
> 
> If the South wanted to make a flag specificly to express racist ideology it'd be like that South Park one with white people and a hanging black man on a gallows.
> 
> As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is intrinsically racist is it represents a country that was formed to ensure the institution of slavery is preserved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BINGO.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the america of 1979 to 1985 disagreed.
> 
> can you explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can
> 
> Blacks in 1979 and 1985 were offended by that flag and urged it to be taken down. Their objections were ignored
> 
> Mr Dylann Root came along and once again proudly used that flag as well as the flags of South Africa and Rhodesia as a symbol of his racist leanings
> 
> We are now taking the objections of the black community seriously
Click to expand...



link to show that the blacks of 1979 to 1985 were offended by the flag and demanded it be taken down. it would be especially cool if they could relate to the dukes.

mr roof was a raving madman.

we were taking the black community seriously in the 80s.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, how many times have you posted about the Dukes of Hazzard, numbnut?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my point about the dukes was clearly not that the confederate flag is cool because of the dukes of hazzard.
> 
> does it seem odd to you that you have to lie in order to even pretend to yourself that you have scored a "point" against me?
> 
> what with you being so smart and all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazard is a TV show...entertainment
> 
> They are free to display the Rebel Flag in a depiction of southern boys as much as any other TV show is free to display the Nazi Flag in a depiction of 1940s Germany, or a burning cross in a depiction of the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rw, we have gone over this repeatedly.
> 
> my point is that the nation wide acceptance of the presentation of the flag as a harmless symbol of regional pride, disproves your claim that the flag has always been seen as a symbol of treason, racism and hatred.
> 
> 
> you have responded appropriately to that point several times.
> 
> you have tried to argue what has changed since then, ie the "Sharp rise" in hate groups, david duke specifically.
> 
> 
> i have pointed out that they are still tiny and that david duke was humiliated in the presidential election.
> 
> 
> moving forward,
> 
> your view of the flag as a symbol that can ONLY mean treason, hatred and racism, has been disproven.
> 
> 
> would you like to present another rationalization for your hatred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe I have presented the view that the Rebel Flag is ONLY a symbol of racism. That is not the case
> The flag has a rightful place in historical contest as a symbol of the Confederacy. I have no issues with its display at battlefields, monuments or even private residences, businesses or pickup trucks
> 
> My point has been that the flag has evolved from a battle flag to a symbol of racism. Whether that is fair or not cannot be helped...the flag was pulled out as a banner for segregation and racist hate
> 
> I think South Carolina has do defense in their use of that flag. The fact is that they only chose to fly it proudly from their statehouse in 1962 as a direct insult to those fighting against segregation and for voting rights
> 
> That they now claim the flag has other meanings is not relevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are certainly claiming now that it has only one meaning now.
> 
> 
> teh dukes of hazzard ran AFTER the time period is which you believe the flag "evolved" into a symbol of racism.
> 
> the acceptance of the presentation of the flag in the 80s shows that that nation as a whole thought those other meanings were the primary, if not only meaning.
> 
> the "evolution" of the view of the flag by the left, occurred long after the battles against segregation and voting rights were won.
> 
> this anger and hatred from the left for the south, and their pride in their heritage has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

 
THE DUKES OF HAZARD!


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious it's been co-opted by racists. That's not the same thing, nor grounds for punitive measures against it.
> 
> If the South wanted to make a flag specificly to express racist ideology it'd be like that South Park one with white people and a hanging black man on a gallows.
> 
> As it is, it's only as racist as the observer makes it. They're nothing whatsoever intrinsically racist about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is intrinsically racist is it represents a country that was formed to ensure the institution of slavery is preserved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BINGO.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the america of 1979 to 1985 disagreed.
> 
> can you explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can
> 
> Blacks in 1979 and 1985 were offended by that flag and urged it to be taken down. Their objections were ignored
> 
> Mr Dylann Root came along and once again proudly used that flag as well as the flags of South Africa and Rhodesia as a symbol of his racist leanings
> 
> We are now taking the objections of the black community seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link to show that the blacks of 1979 to 1985 were offended by the flag and demanded it be taken down. it would be especially cool if they could relate to the dukes.
> 
> mr roof was a raving madman.
> 
> we were taking the black community seriously in the 80s.
Click to expand...

 
THE DUKES OF HAZARD!




*.*


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is intrinsically racist is it represents a country that was formed to ensure the institution of slavery is preserved
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the america of 1979 to 1985 disagreed.
> 
> can you explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can
> 
> Blacks in 1979 and 1985 were offended by that flag and urged it to be taken down. Their objections were ignored
> 
> Mr Dylann Root came along and once again proudly used that flag as well as the flags of South Africa and Rhodesia as a symbol of his racist leanings
> 
> We are now taking the objections of the black community seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link to show that the blacks of 1979 to 1985 were offended by the flag and demanded it be taken down. it would be especially cool if they could relate to the dukes.
> 
> mr roof was a raving madman.
> 
> we were taking the black community seriously in the 80s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE DUKES OF HAZARD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
Click to expand...


i see no link supporting your claim.


----------



## thanatos144

Ravi said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mcguiver1000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit... It is not a symbol of racism...
> If the confederate side won the civil war then we would be having this discussion over the Stars and Stripes. It is still a symbol of our history and has nothing to do with hatred, racism or bigotry. It is our history and like all, good and bad needs to be remembered and embraced for what it is. A flag of our history and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> It is the flag of a racist society
> 
> A society formed for the sole purpose of ensuring the right to slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a symbol of democrats and their history of being pro slavery, Jim crow laws , segregation and pro KKK. Al Gores own father filibustered the 1964 civil rights act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then no one will be sad to see it go.
Click to expand...

Oh there are neo confederates who will hate this. I am sure only sad that democrats are trying to erase thier history once more 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the america of 1979 to 1985 disagreed.
> 
> can you explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can
> 
> Blacks in 1979 and 1985 were offended by that flag and urged it to be taken down. Their objections were ignored
> 
> Mr Dylann Root came along and once again proudly used that flag as well as the flags of South Africa and Rhodesia as a symbol of his racist leanings
> 
> We are now taking the objections of the black community seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link to show that the blacks of 1979 to 1985 were offended by the flag and demanded it be taken down. it would be especially cool if they could relate to the dukes.
> 
> mr roof was a raving madman.
> 
> we were taking the black community seriously in the 80s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE DUKES OF HAZARD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see no link supporting your claim.
Click to expand...

My claim is this:

Anyone who watches The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
Anyone who admits to liking The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
Anyone who would use The Dukes of Hazard to justify the Confederate Flag is a moron


----------



## MaryL

Correll said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unsurprisingly we aren't surprised. The Confederacy was all about states rights, and *those rights were about preserving the rich white land owners's right to own other people. *Not a nobel cause. Given that a lot of slave owning southerners years earlier  signed their names to the Constitution. "All men are created equal" wasn't taken literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just "other people".
> 
> Black people.
> 
> Indentured servitude of non-blacks was long a thing of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good catch staat!
> 
> can't have mary thinking of slaves as "people".
> 
> it is very important to remember that they were "black people".
> 
> 
> can you explain why?
Click to expand...

 
Am I missing something? Blacks ARE people.  Not a different class, sub set or alternative. I don't understand why some posters are accentuating race in the same  way racists do...


----------



## Politico

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the america of 1979 to 1985 disagreed.
> 
> can you explain that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can
> 
> Blacks in 1979 and 1985 were offended by that flag and urged it to be taken down. Their objections were ignored
> 
> Mr Dylann Root came along and once again proudly used that flag as well as the flags of South Africa and Rhodesia as a symbol of his racist leanings
> 
> We are now taking the objections of the black community seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link to show that the blacks of 1979 to 1985 were offended by the flag and demanded it be taken down. it would be especially cool if they could relate to the dukes.
> 
> mr roof was a raving madman.
> 
> we were taking the black community seriously in the 80s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE DUKES OF HAZARD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see no link supporting your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim is this:
> 
> Anyone who watches The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
> Anyone who admits to liking The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
> Anyone who would use The Dukes of Hazard to justify the Confederate Flag is a moron
Click to expand...

You are a moron.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the america of 1979 to 1985 disagreed.
> 
> can you explain that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can
> 
> Blacks in 1979 and 1985 were offended by that flag and urged it to be taken down. Their objections were ignored
> 
> Mr Dylann Root came along and once again proudly used that flag as well as the flags of South Africa and Rhodesia as a symbol of his racist leanings
> 
> We are now taking the objections of the black community seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link to show that the blacks of 1979 to 1985 were offended by the flag and demanded it be taken down. it would be especially cool if they could relate to the dukes.
> 
> mr roof was a raving madman.
> 
> we were taking the black community seriously in the 80s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE DUKES OF HAZARD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see no link supporting your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim is this:
> 
> Anyone who watches The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
> Anyone who admits to liking The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
> Anyone who would use The Dukes of Hazard to justify the Confederate Flag is a moron
Click to expand...





1. bullshit. smart people can enjoy senseless action just as much as anyone.

2. bullshit. see above.

3. a lie. you know that has not been my point. why are you afraid to honestly respond to my point?

oh. right. you can't.

and you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

so, did you try to find a link to support your claim that the black of 1979-85 were offended by the flag and tried to get it removed/taken down?

tried and failed?


----------



## rightwinger

Politico said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can
> 
> Blacks in 1979 and 1985 were offended by that flag and urged it to be taken down. Their objections were ignored
> 
> Mr Dylann Root came along and once again proudly used that flag as well as the flags of South Africa and Rhodesia as a symbol of his racist leanings
> 
> We are now taking the objections of the black community seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link to show that the blacks of 1979 to 1985 were offended by the flag and demanded it be taken down. it would be especially cool if they could relate to the dukes.
> 
> mr roof was a raving madman.
> 
> we were taking the black community seriously in the 80s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE DUKES OF HAZARD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see no link supporting your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim is this:
> 
> Anyone who watches The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
> Anyone who admits to liking The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
> Anyone who would use The Dukes of Hazard to justify the Confederate Flag is a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a moron.
Click to expand...

 
Actually.......I'm just a good ole boy, never meaning no harm


----------



## Correll

MaryL said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unsurprisingly we aren't surprised. The Confederacy was all about states rights, and *those rights were about preserving the rich white land owners's right to own other people. *Not a nobel cause. Given that a lot of slave owning southerners years earlier  signed their names to the Constitution. "All men are created equal" wasn't taken literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just "other people".
> 
> Black people.
> 
> Indentured servitude of non-blacks was long a thing of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good catch staat!
> 
> can't have mary thinking of slaves as "people".
> 
> it is very important to remember that they were "black people".
> 
> 
> can you explain why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I missing something? Blacks ARE people.  Not a different class, sub set or alternative. I don't understand why some posters are accentuating race in the same  way racists do...
Click to expand...



that was my point...


almost makes you question your assumptions about who are the racists...


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> link to show that the blacks of 1979 to 1985 were offended by the flag and demanded it be taken down. it would be especially cool if they could relate to the dukes.
> 
> mr roof was a raving madman.
> 
> we were taking the black community seriously in the 80s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE DUKES OF HAZARD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see no link supporting your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim is this:
> 
> Anyone who watches The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
> Anyone who admits to liking The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
> Anyone who would use The Dukes of Hazard to justify the Confederate Flag is a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually.......I'm just a good ole boy, never meaning no harm
Click to expand...


i don't recall the duke boys ever lying.


----------



## Wyld Kard

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat motto: Never let a good crisis or dead bodies go to waste
> 
> USE them to further your HATEFUL political agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is HATEFUL about wanting an offensive flag to be taken down in a time of grief?
Click to expand...

 
What is OFFENSIVE is your lack of knowledge and understanding about the flag.  

You know nothing expect that spoon-fed garbage that you were just gullible enough to believe in and accept.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Statistikhengst said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, not so much.
> 
> *slavery was not a result of the civil war,* and very few blacks fought it the war.
> 
> 
> a descendant of union soldiers might have something to complain about.
> 
> of course those soldiers, the ones that lived, were part of the american society that put the civil war behind them and healed the nation's wounds.
> 
> and their children's children's children do not have the moral authority to undo those choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was the CAUSE of the Civil War.
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> I see you learned well from David Duke.
Click to expand...

 


> No, it was the CAUSE of the Civil War.


 
Liar!  

The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

Get your goddamn facts straight, dumbass.

.


----------



## thanatos144

Wildcard said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, not so much.
> 
> *slavery was not a result of the civil war,* and very few blacks fought it the war.
> 
> 
> a descendant of union soldiers might have something to complain about.
> 
> of course those soldiers, the ones that lived, were part of the american society that put the civil war behind them and healed the nation's wounds.
> 
> and their children's children's children do not have the moral authority to undo those choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was the CAUSE of the Civil War.
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> I see you learned well from David Duke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was the CAUSE of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar!
> 
> The Civil War was not fought over slavery.
> 
> Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun
> 
> Get your goddamn facts straight, dumbass.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Only a idiot refuses to see slavery was the main reason for the war.... for fuck sakes it was in thier constitution 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pogo

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the america of 1979 to 1985 disagreed.
> 
> can you explain that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can
> 
> Blacks in 1979 and 1985 were offended by that flag and urged it to be taken down. Their objections were ignored
> 
> Mr Dylann Root came along and once again proudly used that flag as well as the flags of South Africa and Rhodesia as a symbol of his racist leanings
> 
> We are now taking the objections of the black community seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> link to show that the blacks of 1979 to 1985 were offended by the flag and demanded it be taken down. it would be especially cool if they could relate to the dukes.
> 
> mr roof was a raving madman.
> 
> we were taking the black community seriously in the 80s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE DUKES OF HAZARD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see no link supporting your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim is this:
> 
> Anyone who watches The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
> Anyone who admits to liking The Dukes of Hazard is a moron
> Anyone who would use The Dukes of Hazard to justify the Confederate Flag is a moron
Click to expand...


Can't agree.  Mindless as the TV show may have been (it's TV after all), the fact that here were a couple of guys who had nothing whatsoever to do with racism, sporting a CF on their car, _confirms _what I've been saying all along -- that it's a _cultural _symbol, a marque representing geography, language, cuisine, music, having dinner and supper rather than lunch and dinner -- all those things that identify one's *roots*.

In the context of the show that flag on the car serves as a _setting marker_ -- tells the viewer _*where* _the action is taking place.  Clearly it carries got no message of racism.

To go around claiming "it's a racist symbol and that's all it is" is at best disingenuous.  Yes it's used that way, usually by those who aren't real bright at their own history like Dylann Roof -- but that doesn't mean there's no other interpretation or that Dylann Roof is some kind of CEO of What The Flag Means.  It just doesn't.  That's an association fallacy no better than "all liberals this", "all conservatives that" or "all blacks the other thing".

And if you think about it, unless you want to paint a great big pitcher of sweet tea on the car, or a cartoon of a waitress pointing at margarine and calling it "butter", there really isn't another logo that serves the same cultural icon for the South.  I can't think of one.


----------



## Wyld Kard

thanatos144 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, not so much.
> 
> *slavery was not a result of the civil war,* and very few blacks fought it the war.
> 
> 
> a descendant of union soldiers might have something to complain about.
> 
> of course those soldiers, the ones that lived, were part of the american society that put the civil war behind them and healed the nation's wounds.
> 
> and their children's children's children do not have the moral authority to undo those choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was the CAUSE of the Civil War.
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> I see you learned well from David Duke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was the CAUSE of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar!
> 
> The Civil War was not fought over slavery.
> 
> Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun
> 
> Get your goddamn facts straight, dumbass.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a idiot refuses to see slavery was the main reason for the war.... for fuck sakes it was in thier constitution
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

 


> slavery was the main reason for the war


 
Bullshit!  

States Rights was the issue, NOT SLAVERY!

Only a dumbass would ignore the facts, and believe the bullshit.


----------



## thanatos144

Wildcard said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, not so much.
> 
> *slavery was not a result of the civil war,* and very few blacks fought it the war.
> 
> 
> a descendant of union soldiers might have something to complain about.
> 
> of course those soldiers, the ones that lived, were part of the american society that put the civil war behind them and healed the nation's wounds.
> 
> and their children's children's children do not have the moral authority to undo those choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was the CAUSE of the Civil War.
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> I see you learned well from David Duke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was the CAUSE of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar!
> 
> The Civil War was not fought over slavery.
> 
> Slavery wasn t the main cause of the Civil War - tribunedigital-baltimoresun
> 
> Get your goddamn facts straight, dumbass.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a idiot refuses to see slavery was the main reason for the war.... for fuck sakes it was in thier constitution
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slavery was the main reason for the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> States Rights was the issue, NOT SLAVERY!
> 
> Only a dumbass would ignore the facts, and believe the bullshit.
Click to expand...

The states right to have slavery.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Political Junky

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the time of the Civil Rights marches. It makes perfect sense.


----------



## Correll

Political Junky said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that was the time of the Civil Rights marches. It makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...


It is a very long time ago. A lot has happened since then. Most of those people are probably dead.


----------



## Political Junky

Correll said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that was the time of the Civil Rights marches. It makes perfect sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a very long time ago. A lot has happened since then. Most of those people are probably dead.
Click to expand...

Ask the KKK, CCC, and Neo-Nazis who still use the Confederate Flag.


----------



## Correll

Political Junky said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that was the time of the Civil Rights marches. It makes perfect sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a very long time ago. A lot has happened since then. Most of those people are probably dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the KKK, CCC, and Neo-Nazis who still use the Confederate Flag.
Click to expand...


The Klan?

All 5 k of them?

LOL! Why do they get to define that flag?


----------



## Political Junky

Neo-Nazis in Germany, where the Swastika is banned, use the Confederate Flag.


----------



## Correll

Political Junky said:


> Neo-Nazis in Germany, where the Swastika is banned, use the Confederate Flag.



So, now neo-nazis in Germany are more important that millions of Americans who are proud of their southern heritage?

How many neo nazis are we talking about? couple of dozen? COuple of hundred?


----------



## Political Junky

Correll said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neo-Nazis in Germany, where the Swastika is banned, use the Confederate Flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, now neo-nazis in Germany are more important that millions of Americans who are proud of their southern heritage?
> 
> How many neo nazis are we talking about? couple of dozen? COuple of hundred?
Click to expand...

The confederate flag is used in several European countries by far right racial purists. Ask David Duke, who was asked to leave.


----------



## Political Junky

Why do Italian soccer fans and other foreigners fly the Confederate flag - The Washington Post


----------



## Correll

Political Junky said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neo-Nazis in Germany, where the Swastika is banned, use the Confederate Flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, now neo-nazis in Germany are more important that millions of Americans who are proud of their southern heritage?
> 
> How many neo nazis are we talking about? couple of dozen? COuple of hundred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederate flag is used in several European countries by far right racial purists. Ask David Duke, who was asked to leave.
Click to expand...


David Duke?! NOw  your taking your cues from David Duke?

IMO the only possible use for David Duke is that his presidential campaign revealed how weak White Supremacy is in America.

You ever review his elections returns when he ran for Presidency after the truth came out?

Funny stuff. Got 1% of the vote in his home state!


----------



## Political Junky

Correll said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neo-Nazis in Germany, where the Swastika is banned, use the Confederate Flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, now neo-nazis in Germany are more important that millions of Americans who are proud of their southern heritage?
> 
> How many neo nazis are we talking about? couple of dozen? COuple of hundred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederate flag is used in several European countries by far right racial purists. Ask David Duke, who was asked to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Duke?! NOw  your taking your cues from David Duke?
> 
> IMO the only possible use for David Duke is that his presidential campaign revealed how weak White Supremacy is in America.
> 
> You ever review his elections returns when he ran for Presidency after the truth came out?
> 
> Funny stuff. Got 1% of the vote in his home state!
Click to expand...

In 1988 he ran in several Democratic Presidential campaigns, winning no primaries and gaining substantial votes only in the South, but the campaign was given widespread media coverage, which made Duke famous. I*n 1989 he switched parties and was elected to the Louisiana House as a Republican. In 1990 he ran for the US Senate, receiving 44% of the vote against the Democratic incumbent, J. Bennett Johnston. In his 1991 campaign for Louisiana Governor, he received 39% of the vote, losing to Edwin Edwards. Remarkably, however, Duke received somewhere between 55% and 60% of the white vote.*
David Duke


----------



## Correll

Political Junky said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neo-Nazis in Germany, where the Swastika is banned, use the Confederate Flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, now neo-nazis in Germany are more important that millions of Americans who are proud of their southern heritage?
> 
> How many neo nazis are we talking about? couple of dozen? COuple of hundred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederate flag is used in several European countries by far right racial purists. Ask David Duke, who was asked to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Duke?! NOw  your taking your cues from David Duke?
> 
> IMO the only possible use for David Duke is that his presidential campaign revealed how weak White Supremacy is in America.
> 
> You ever review his elections returns when he ran for Presidency after the truth came out?
> 
> Funny stuff. Got 1% of the vote in his home state!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988 he ran in several Democratic Presidential campaigns, winning no primaries and gaining substantial votes only in the South, but the campaign was given widespread media coverage, which made Duke famous. I*n 1989 he switched parties and was elected to the Louisiana House as a Republican. In 1990 he ran for the US Senate, receiving 44% of the vote against the Democratic incumbent, J. Bennett Johnston. In his 1991 campaign for Louisiana Governor, he received 39% of the vote, losing to Edwin Edwards. Remarkably, however, Duke received somewhere between 55% and 60% of the white vote.*
> David Duke
Click to expand...



This is once the truth was well distributed.

*"1992 Republican Party presidential candidate*
Duke ran as a Republican in the 1992 presidential primaries, although Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.[73] He received 119,115 (0.94%) votes[74] in the primaries, but no delegates to the national convention."


LESS THAN one percent.


----------



## Political Junky

Correll said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neo-Nazis in Germany, where the Swastika is banned, use the Confederate Flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, now neo-nazis in Germany are more important that millions of Americans who are proud of their southern heritage?
> 
> How many neo nazis are we talking about? couple of dozen? COuple of hundred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederate flag is used in several European countries by far right racial purists. Ask David Duke, who was asked to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Duke?! NOw  your taking your cues from David Duke?
> 
> IMO the only possible use for David Duke is that his presidential campaign revealed how weak White Supremacy is in America.
> 
> You ever review his elections returns when he ran for Presidency after the truth came out?
> 
> Funny stuff. Got 1% of the vote in his home state!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988 he ran in several Democratic Presidential campaigns, winning no primaries and gaining substantial votes only in the South, but the campaign was given widespread media coverage, which made Duke famous. I*n 1989 he switched parties and was elected to the Louisiana House as a Republican. In 1990 he ran for the US Senate, receiving 44% of the vote against the Democratic incumbent, J. Bennett Johnston. In his 1991 campaign for Louisiana Governor, he received 39% of the vote, losing to Edwin Edwards. Remarkably, however, Duke received somewhere between 55% and 60% of the white vote.*
> David Duke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is once the truth was well distributed.
> 
> *"1992 Republican Party presidential candidate*
> Duke ran as a Republican in the 1992 presidential primaries, although Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.[73] He received 119,115 (0.94%) votes[74] in the primaries, but no delegates to the national convention."
> 
> 
> LESS THAN one percent.
Click to expand...

OK, we're both right.
Duke still one 55-60% of the white vote for governor of Louisiana.


----------



## Correll

Political Junky said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, now neo-nazis in Germany are more important that millions of Americans who are proud of their southern heritage?
> 
> How many neo nazis are we talking about? couple of dozen? COuple of hundred?
> 
> 
> 
> The confederate flag is used in several European countries by far right racial purists. Ask David Duke, who was asked to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Duke?! NOw  your taking your cues from David Duke?
> 
> IMO the only possible use for David Duke is that his presidential campaign revealed how weak White Supremacy is in America.
> 
> You ever review his elections returns when he ran for Presidency after the truth came out?
> 
> Funny stuff. Got 1% of the vote in his home state!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988 he ran in several Democratic Presidential campaigns, winning no primaries and gaining substantial votes only in the South, but the campaign was given widespread media coverage, which made Duke famous. I*n 1989 he switched parties and was elected to the Louisiana House as a Republican. In 1990 he ran for the US Senate, receiving 44% of the vote against the Democratic incumbent, J. Bennett Johnston. In his 1991 campaign for Louisiana Governor, he received 39% of the vote, losing to Edwin Edwards. Remarkably, however, Duke received somewhere between 55% and 60% of the white vote.*
> David Duke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is once the truth was well distributed.
> 
> *"1992 Republican Party presidential candidate*
> Duke ran as a Republican in the 1992 presidential primaries, although Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.[73] He received 119,115 (0.94%) votes[74] in the primaries, but no delegates to the national convention."
> 
> 
> LESS THAN one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, we're both right.
> Duke still one 55-60% of the white vote for governor of Louisiana.
Click to expand...



So, why fade into obscurity?

With that kind of support he certainly could have found a House district he could win...

Or maybe those numbers have more to do with lack of penetration of the truth, which did not come out until AFTER the primaries were over.


----------



## Political Junky

Correll said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confederate flag is used in several European countries by far right racial purists. Ask David Duke, who was asked to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke?! NOw  your taking your cues from David Duke?
> 
> IMO the only possible use for David Duke is that his presidential campaign revealed how weak White Supremacy is in America.
> 
> You ever review his elections returns when he ran for Presidency after the truth came out?
> 
> Funny stuff. Got 1% of the vote in his home state!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1988 he ran in several Democratic Presidential campaigns, winning no primaries and gaining substantial votes only in the South, but the campaign was given widespread media coverage, which made Duke famous. I*n 1989 he switched parties and was elected to the Louisiana House as a Republican. In 1990 he ran for the US Senate, receiving 44% of the vote against the Democratic incumbent, J. Bennett Johnston. In his 1991 campaign for Louisiana Governor, he received 39% of the vote, losing to Edwin Edwards. Remarkably, however, Duke received somewhere between 55% and 60% of the white vote.*
> David Duke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is once the truth was well distributed.
> 
> *"1992 Republican Party presidential candidate*
> Duke ran as a Republican in the 1992 presidential primaries, although Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.[73] He received 119,115 (0.94%) votes[74] in the primaries, but no delegates to the national convention."
> 
> 
> LESS THAN one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, we're both right.
> Duke still one 55-60% of the white vote for governor of Louisiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why fade into obscurity?
> 
> With that kind of support he certainly could have found a House district he could win...
> 
> Or maybe those numbers have more to do with lack of penetration of the truth, which did not come out until AFTER the primaries were over.
Click to expand...

He did win as a republican. See the link -
David Duke


----------



## Correll

Political Junky said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke?! NOw  your taking your cues from David Duke?
> 
> IMO the only possible use for David Duke is that his presidential campaign revealed how weak White Supremacy is in America.
> 
> You ever review his elections returns when he ran for Presidency after the truth came out?
> 
> Funny stuff. Got 1% of the vote in his home state!
> 
> 
> 
> In 1988 he ran in several Democratic Presidential campaigns, winning no primaries and gaining substantial votes only in the South, but the campaign was given widespread media coverage, which made Duke famous. I*n 1989 he switched parties and was elected to the Louisiana House as a Republican. In 1990 he ran for the US Senate, receiving 44% of the vote against the Democratic incumbent, J. Bennett Johnston. In his 1991 campaign for Louisiana Governor, he received 39% of the vote, losing to Edwin Edwards. Remarkably, however, Duke received somewhere between 55% and 60% of the white vote.*
> David Duke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is once the truth was well distributed.
> 
> *"1992 Republican Party presidential candidate*
> Duke ran as a Republican in the 1992 presidential primaries, although Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.[73] He received 119,115 (0.94%) votes[74] in the primaries, but no delegates to the national convention."
> 
> 
> LESS THAN one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, we're both right.
> Duke still one 55-60% of the white vote for governor of Louisiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why fade into obscurity?
> 
> With that kind of support he certainly could have found a House district he could win...
> 
> Or maybe those numbers have more to do with lack of penetration of the truth, which did not come out until AFTER the primaries were over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did win as a republican. See the link -
> David Duke
Click to expand...



Yes. Before the truth about his klan days was known.

It did not become widely know until after the primaries in his governor's race.


----------



## Political Junky

Correll said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1988 he ran in several Democratic Presidential campaigns, winning no primaries and gaining substantial votes only in the South, but the campaign was given widespread media coverage, which made Duke famous. I*n 1989 he switched parties and was elected to the Louisiana House as a Republican. In 1990 he ran for the US Senate, receiving 44% of the vote against the Democratic incumbent, J. Bennett Johnston. In his 1991 campaign for Louisiana Governor, he received 39% of the vote, losing to Edwin Edwards. Remarkably, however, Duke received somewhere between 55% and 60% of the white vote.*
> David Duke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is once the truth was well distributed.
> 
> *"1992 Republican Party presidential candidate*
> Duke ran as a Republican in the 1992 presidential primaries, although Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.[73] He received 119,115 (0.94%) votes[74] in the primaries, but no delegates to the national convention."
> 
> 
> LESS THAN one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, we're both right.
> Duke still one 55-60% of the white vote for governor of Louisiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why fade into obscurity?
> 
> With that kind of support he certainly could have found a House district he could win...
> 
> Or maybe those numbers have more to do with lack of penetration of the truth, which did not come out until AFTER the primaries were over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did win as a republican. See the link -
> David Duke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Before the truth about his klan days was known.
> 
> It did not become widely know until after the primaries in his governor's race.
Click to expand...

They knew about his Klan days, and love him for it. I grew up not far from where he lives ... trust me.


----------



## Correll

Political Junky said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is once the truth was well distributed.
> 
> *"1992 Republican Party presidential candidate*
> Duke ran as a Republican in the 1992 presidential primaries, although Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.[73] He received 119,115 (0.94%) votes[74] in the primaries, but no delegates to the national convention."
> 
> 
> LESS THAN one percent.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, we're both right.
> Duke still one 55-60% of the white vote for governor of Louisiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why fade into obscurity?
> 
> With that kind of support he certainly could have found a House district he could win...
> 
> Or maybe those numbers have more to do with lack of penetration of the truth, which did not come out until AFTER the primaries were over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did win as a republican. See the link -
> David Duke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Before the truth about his klan days was known.
> 
> It did not become widely know until after the primaries in his governor's race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They knew about his Klan days, and love him for it. I grew up not far from where he lives ... trust me.
Click to expand...



Err, sorry, no. LIbs have been shown by academic studies to be the worst at understanding what people of opposing ideologies think.


----------



## Political Junky

Correll said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, we're both right.
> Duke still one 55-60% of the white vote for governor of Louisiana.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why fade into obscurity?
> 
> With that kind of support he certainly could have found a House district he could win...
> 
> Or maybe those numbers have more to do with lack of penetration of the truth, which did not come out until AFTER the primaries were over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did win as a republican. See the link -
> David Duke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Before the truth about his klan days was known.
> 
> It did not become widely know until after the primaries in his governor's race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They knew about his Klan days, and love him for it. I grew up not far from where he lives ... trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, sorry, no. LIbs have been shown by academic studies to be the worst at understanding what people of opposing ideologies think.
Click to expand...

Bull shit  -


----------



## Correll

Political Junky said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why fade into obscurity?
> 
> With that kind of support he certainly could have found a House district he could win...
> 
> Or maybe those numbers have more to do with lack of penetration of the truth, which did not come out until AFTER the primaries were over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did win as a republican. See the link -
> David Duke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Before the truth about his klan days was known.
> 
> It did not become widely know until after the primaries in his governor's race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They knew about his Klan days, and love him for it. I grew up not far from where he lives ... trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, sorry, no. LIbs have been shown by academic studies to be the worst at understanding what people of opposing ideologies think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit  -
Click to expand...



Here you go.

Born This Way - Reason.com

"In a study I conducted with colleagues Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than 2,000 American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right. Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the care and fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with statements such as “one of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or “justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He is more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of loyalty, authority, and sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in care and fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal weekly _The_ _Village Voice_, when he wrote in 2004: “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet.…Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic—who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living—to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own."


And no, the researchers are not conservatives.


----------



## thanatos144

Political Junky said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag was used as a means to put Civil Rights marchers in their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that photo in black and white?
> 
> oh, because it so so old that color film was not in common use.
> 
> sometime in the 50s, most likely. perhaps early 60s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that was the time of the Civil Rights marches. It makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

That was the time democrats were lynching and hanging black people

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------

