Confederate Flag

[YDB95]

When I said I don't dictate your symbolism interpretation, you readily agreed. When I then said you should extend that same courtesy to others, you tried comparing symbolism to mathematics.

See the problem?

Of course I see the problem. As always, you based your argument entirely on "it could mean something else and you're the bad guy for not acknowledging that" without any effort whatsoever to support that other interpretation (or in this case, even explain what that interpretation could be in the first place). If you want to argue that the Confederate flag is anything other than a symbol of racism, go right ahead and do that. I probably won't agree, but I'll listen. But you haven't done it here. My point with the mathematics analogy was, your argument not only flies in the face of just about all the evidence, it doesn't even try to address that fact. So to anyone but a Lost Cause apologist, it's similar to arguing that two and two make five.

And lest we forget, this whole thing started with you implying that people were calling for banning the Confederate flag, when no one here ever said that.

The increasing power of the Federal government was the central concern of the states that seceded. Slavery was just the flashpoint and the central point that 180 years of Northern-educated historians chose to highlight. The old adage of The Victors Write The History being true.

I've always considered the Civil War to be an exception to that rule. The North won, but...

The US in 1859 was not unlike the European Union in 2026 where the prevailing notion was that member states could leave the broader association if they so chose to do so.

No, that was not the prevailing notion. Then as now, secession was unconstitutional.

Quite laughingly, these days it's the Democrat-Communist states who are talking about secession and state's rights over the issues of Voter ID, gun control, taxation, speech regulation, DEI, transgenderism, and illegal immigration.

Cite please.

 

[TastySuckToy]

you based your argument entirely on "it could mean something else and you're the bad guy for not acknowledging that"

I wouldn't say it makes you a 'bad' guy, just ignorant and self absorbed.

without any effort whatsoever to support that other interpretation

I don't need to justify, defend or define other people's interpretations. I just acknowledge that they exist.

You also do not need to justify, defend or define other people's interpretations. I'm just curious if you're capable of acknowledging they exist.

 

[YDB95]

I wouldn't say it makes you a 'bad' guy, just ignorant and self absorbed.

That argument would carry a lot more weight if you ever offered up some evidence in favor of those other interpretations. But you always just say:

I don't need to justify, defend or define other people's interpretations. I just acknowledge that they exist.

You also do not need to justify, defend or define other people's interpretations. I'm just curious if you're capable of acknowledging they exist.

Where there's evidence to that end, of course I am. But if you're not even going to try to offer up any such interpretations or any evidence whatsoever in their favor, maybe you're the one who needs to take a second look at your perspective.

As for whether the Confederate flag could stand for something other than racism, the closest I've ever heard to an argument in that favor is the "Heritage not hate" claim. To which I say, what heritage? The one rooted in a failed effort to destroy our country in the name of people's right to own other human beings? That claim also ignores the reality that the flag in question was popularized in the first place as part of a backlash against civil rights reform. It wasn't even widely used in the Civil War, and was understood at the time only as the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, which used it because the official Confederate flag - the "stars and bars" - looked too similar to the US flag.

So perhaps the real question is not, "Are there other interpretations of what that flag means?", but rather "Are there other such interpretations that are rooted in historical fact?"

 

[TastySuckToy]

Where there's evidence to that end, of course I am.

Great! The next time someone contests something like a statue or flag meaning what you assert it must mean for them, you have your evidence.

So perhaps the real question is not, "Are there other interpretations of what that flag means?"

Correct, that isn't a question. We know for a fact people have different interpretations of symbolic concepts.

And naturally, you shifted to the predictable stance of trying to argue differing interpretations are only valid if they conform to your arbitrary justifications on what makes them 'valid'.

If someone tells me, for example, they think the confederate flag stands for freedom, I have no problem accepting that is how they see it. You have zero say in the matter. What you think it may stand for is your opinion and interpretation.

 

[YDB95]

Correct, that isn't a question. We know for a fact people have different interpretations of symbolic concepts.

It does not follow from there that we have to pretend all interpretations are equally well supported by the facts. They are not. If I say "Hamlet" is a recipe for margaritas spelled backwards in an ancient African language, no one has to pretend that opinion carries the same weight as that of someone who has studied Shakespeare and his works.

And naturally, you shifted to the predictable stance of trying to argue differing interpretations are only valid if they conform to your arbitrary justifications on what makes them 'valid'.

No. Historical facts and the context they lend are not arbitrary. (Nor are they mine, or anyone else's.)

If someone tells me, for example, they think the confederate flag stands for freedom, I have no problem accepting that is how they see it. You have zero say in the matter. What you think it may stand for is your opinion and interpretation.

Facts and context matter, no matter how inclined you are to ignore them. I mean, if you went to Israel wearing a swastika t-shirt and told people, "To me, it's a symbol of health and good fortune", do you really think people would accept that? (And that's an example where you actually could claim historical accuracy!)

 

[TastySuckToy]

It does not follow from there that we have to pretend all interpretations are equally well supported by the facts. They are not. If I say "Hamlet" is a recipe for margaritas spelled backwards in an ancient African language, no one has to pretend that opinion carries the same weight as that of someone who has studied Shakespeare and his works.

Not comparable to individual beliefs and interpretations of symbolic concepts. You're conflating external materials with internal beliefs and thoughts.

No. Historical facts and the context they lend are not arbitrary. (Nor are they mine, or anyone else's.)

Facts and context matter, no matter how inclined you are to ignore them. I mean, if you went to Israel wearing a swastika t-shirt and told people, "To me, it's a symbol of health and good fortune", do you really think people would accept that? (And that's an example where you actually could claim historical accuracy!)

Nothing there refutes the fact that neither you nor anyone else gets to dictate what others believe or how they interpret symbolic concepts.

do you really think people would accept that?

Other people's acceptance does not refute the existence of beliefs, interpretations and thoughts.

"To me, it's a symbol of health and good fortune".

I don't care if the entire world disagrees with that statement. It's a perfectly valid claim, because people are free to think and believe as they choose.

 

[YDB95]

Not comparable to individual beliefs and interpretations of symbolic concepts. You're conflating external materials with internal beliefs and thoughts.

Of course it's comparable. No one can just demand that everyone else ignore historical context, especially not with a symbol as strongly associated with racism as the Confederate flag.

Nothing there refutes the fact that neither you nor anyone else gets to dictate what others believe or how they interpret symbolic concepts.

I never said I (or anyone else) did. But it's one thing for other people to believe that flag is a benign or even positive symbol, and it's something else entirely for those people to expect everyone else to respect a view that could only be called ignorant and naive, based not on my opinions but rather on the historical reality with which that flag is irrevocably connected.

Other people's acceptance does not refute the existence of beliefs, interpretations and thoughts.

But facts impact the validity of those beliefs.

 

[TastySuckToy]

No one can just demand that everyone else ignore historical context, especially not with a symbol as strongly associated with racism as the Confederate flag.

No one is obligated to accept your association claims and connections.

If someone likes swastikas because they see them as symbols of good forture, they're under no obligation to care you think they're more associated with nazism.

I never said I (or anyone else) did. But it's one thing for other people to believe that flag is a benign or even positive symbol, and it's something else entirely for those people to expect everyone else to respect a view that could only be called ignorant and naive, based not on my opinions but rather on the historical reality with which that flag is irrevocably connected.

See above. Your demand that your preferred historical association claims must be respected by anyone else is irrelvant.

But facts impact the validity of those beliefs.

No, they don't. Nazism doesn't in any way invalidate someone's intepretation and belief of the swastika as a symbol of good fortune.

 

[stxjimmy]

Forum decorum, oldster. Thou shalt not defame thy fellow thread poster.

It’s becoming lots more common for derpy to move straight to personally slighting an adversary. Tolerance and a short fuse both waining, and hostility on the rise.
It’s as if he knows his arguments are flawed so he has to rely on a faux imagined intellectual superiority.

 

[YDB95]

No one is obligated to accept your association claims and connections.

Likewise, no one is obligated to play along with anyone who wants to pretend historical context doesn't exist.

If someone likes swastikas because they see them as symbols of good forture, they're under no obligation to care you think they're more associated with nazism.

I never said they were.

No, they don't. Nazism doesn't in any way invalidate someone's intepretation and belief of the swastika as a symbol of good fortune.

In other words, no one can stop you from burying your head in the sand. I guess you're right, we can't.

 

[stxjimmy]

If someone likes swastikas because they see them as symbols of good forture, they're under no obligation to care you think they're more associated with nazism.

No, they don't. Nazism doesn't in any way invalidate someone's intepretation and belief of the swastika as a symbol of good fortune.

Lacking in empathy, common humanity, respect and awareness.

True colours showing?

 

[LeahWill]

he has to rely on a faux imagined intellectual superiority.

Surely not even the Fake Lawyer is stupid enough to imagine he has that?

 

[glamorilla]

Awesome and informative thread. I appreciate being made aware of the threat the confederate flag holds in todays society. I'll be sure to avoid them in the future if I ever happen to come across one which except for old Dukes of Hazzard reruns has been never.

Now that we've cleared that up can someone tells me what this means?

I see a lot more of these around the city these days...

I've been led to believe its racist.

 

[Chernosoth]

Nations this big don't stay this big forever. It will split apart, by secession, constitutional amendment to dissolve the union, other nations taking territory, etc. All the new smaller nations will need new flags. The south has one already done and sitting on a shelf, but it is a symbol of getting ass thoroughly kicked, so southerners may still want a new flag.

 

[Sign54]

That argument would carry a lot more weight if you ever offered up some evidence in favor of those other interpretations. But you always just say:



Where there's evidence to that end, of course I am. But if you're not even going to try to offer up any such interpretations or any evidence whatsoever in their favor, maybe you're the one who needs to take a second look at your perspective.

As for whether the Confederate flag could stand for something other than racism, the closest I've ever heard to an argument in that favor is the "Heritage not hate" claim. To which I say, what heritage? The one rooted in a failed effort to destroy our country in the name of people's right to own other human beings? That claim also ignores the reality that the flag in question was popularized in the first place as part of a backlash against civil rights reform. It wasn't even widely used in the Civil War, and was understood at the time only as the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, which used it because the official Confederate flag - the "stars and bars" - looked too similar to the US flag.

So perhaps the real question is not, "Are there other interpretations of what that flag means?", but rather "Are there other such interpretations that are rooted in historical fact?"

Mississsippi Declaration of Secession-"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
That is Confederate Heritage in a nutshell:naked racism.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Likewise, no one is obligated to play along with anyone who wants to pretend historical context doesn't exist.

Like someone who ignores thousands of years of historical context for the swastika in favour of twelve years used by nazism, right?

In other words, no one can stop you from burying your head in the sand. I guess you're right, we can't.

So then your position is anyone associating the swastika with nazism is burying their head in the sand, because that association is dwarfed by thousands of years of different historical context by many cultures.

Interesting, I didn't know you held that position.

 

[njlauren]

It is very easy to prove that secession was never part of the founders aims, that the US was one country
1) the original government was a confederation of seperate colonies then states. The charter was the articles of confederation, literally.
2) in this plan the states were predominant,their own country in effect.
3) it didn't work , the country after the revolution was a mess.
4) what became the constitutional convention was chartered to amend the articles of confederation by Congress.
5) the people there especially Washington realized it was hopeless, that it was putting lipstick on a pig and they basically rejected the confederation idea.
6) so they came up with the constitution of the United States , not 'the confederate states of America' or the like. And it is clear from the document it was one country bound by a central government that was the sovereign power to the world. States cannot do things sovereign nations do, they cannot go to war, they cannot collect tarriffs , they can't negotiate treaties with other countries.

7) the constitution has fully documented procedures for joining the union, in detail.

8) so if the founders wanted states to be able to leave, why didn't they have a procedure for secession,too? Not only that, to use the federalist society,show me where the founders wrote about secession.
9) the founders initially thought the Constitution as written had assumed rights in it, it was clear. There was a huge sentiment it wasn't complete and it is how the bill of rights came out. If the idea of secession was there,why didn't opponents insist it be in the original amendments?
10) there were a few congressmen who tried in the 19th century pre the war to amend the constitution and it never even got to a congressional vote. If supposedly as one person said that in 1859 there was a common understanding thata state could concede, why was it Congress never formally tried to amend the constitution or for that matter, take it to the Supreme Court to decide?

There literally is no logic behind claiming this was a common understanding. The south went ahead and seceded by claiming a right that didn't exist. That this was common understanding or that the founders wanted this fails logic, it was myth concocted after the civil war along with the noble cause to justify secession as something valid when it never was.

As far as the root cause it was slavery. In 1861 Congress passed something called the Corwin Amendment that would have guaranteed the right to hold slaves in the States that held them, it passed Congress but not the states. Its stated intent was to keep.the south in the country , if the issue of secession wasn't slavery why did.they bother with the Corwin Amendment?

It was slavery and it went beyond maintaining it. That were looking to expand it, the biggest cash crop in the South was not cotton but the slaves they sold to others. The south was upset that the Missouri compromise had broken down and in new territories the people there didn't want slavery..expansion of slavery was the big economic driver.

 

[YDB95]

Like someone who ignores thousands of years of historical context for the swastika in favour of twelve years used by nazism, right?

Cute. But I don't believe even you are that dumb.

So then your position is anyone associating the swastika with nazism is burying their head in the sand, because that association is dwarfed by thousands of years of different historical context by many cultures.

Nope. My position is, anyone who wants to pretend the Confederate flag is anything but a symbol of racism has no business expecting anyone else to take them seriously.

 

[Lazaran]

Cute. But I don't believe even you are that dumb.

Nope. My position is, anyone who wants to pretend the Confederate flag is anything but a symbol of racism has no business expecting anyone else to take them seriously.

It’s goddamn insulting expecting decent, intelligent individuals (non-MAGAts) to accept that kind of gaslighting bullshit…

Fuck that racist, racism / Christo-fascist white nationalism rationalizing POS MAGAt (MAGAt91364).



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Cute. But I don't believe even you are that dumb.

You're the one invoking historical context, and now you're saying it's dumb?

Nope. My position is, anyone who wants to pretend the Confederate flag is anything but a symbol of racism has no business expecting anyone else to take them seriously.

The only argument you've made is appealing to 'historical context', and you just proved even you don't take it seriously.

 

[Rebel5soul]

"Oh, I wish I were in the land of cotton................"

[cue triggered snowflakes]

 

[YDB95]

You're the one invoking historical context, and now you're saying it's dumb?

No. I'm saying the length of time during which the swastika was a symbol of evil relative to when it was a symbol of positivity is irrelevant. (Not to mention you're wrong about how long it was the former. The Nazis were in power for 12 years, but they appropriated the swastika well before they came to power, and has remained a symbol of hate - in the West at least - ever since.) What does matter is what the swastika means now. And the same goes for the Confederate flag.

 

[TastySuckToy]

No. I'm saying the length of time during which the swastika was a symbol of evil relative to when it was a symbol of positivity is irrelevant. (Not to mention you're wrong about how long it was the former. The Nazis were in power for 12 years, but they appropriated the swastika well before they came to power, and has remained a symbol of hate - in the West at least - ever since.) What does matter is what the swastika means now. And the same goes for the Confederate flag.

Oh, so if people today decide what the confederate flag means now, historical context can be dismissed.

Funny how you keep flip flopping. First you call people ignorant and naive for not accepting historical context. When I point out the massive historical context of the swastika, you furiously backpedal and say what matters is what it means now.

So much for historical context, eh?

 

[Rebel5soul]

 

[Rebel5soul]