The_Rev Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 In the wake of the Charleston church massacre, there's a big push to have the Confederate flag removed from Southern state capitol buildings, and state flags, as well as statues of Jefferson Davis (Confederate President). And even right wing Southern pols are agreeing that they should go. Really amazing, actually. It will not be popular with a lot of conservative voters though, which makes it a hot potato issue as the presidential primaries get going. Should be fascinating to watch it all unfold. I'd be overjoyed to see all of those flags and statues torn down, all of those streets and landmarks renamed—but I fear that this focus on rebranding the South is going to distract from the real issue here, which is America's deep-seated race problem, something far more insidious and firmly-entrenched than some visible symbols of a remote historical past. And it's not a Southern legacy alone. You can make over the South to look more like the North, but America's race problem isn't a Southern issue—it's a national issue. The entire nation needs to take a look at itself, ask some difficult questions, and go through an even more difficult process of growth and maturation. I've never lived in the States and I see what you are saying but I'm not sure I agree. I don't think tearing down a few flags and renaming a few streets is going to solve the problem overnight but those streets are named after men who went to war to fight for slavery and those flags are they symbol of a nation which tried to exist so it could build an economy based on enslaving black people for physical labour. It's a spin on the clean trains program which was used to clean up NYC isn't it? The logic back then is that if you cleaned up graffiti on the subway then you remove the perception that the city is a crime ridden shithole or owned by a certain group of people that others find intimidating. Remove that imagery and the city can remove that perception. It can change a message which the very fabric of a place can display. The same can be done in the former Confederate states, remove that imagery and maybe you can chip away at an attitude which is perceived to be there. Some people might see that as Orwellian newspeak, others might see it as a necessary step on the way to dragging race relations into the 21st century. It won't solve things overnight. I can't emphasise that enough, but why shouldn't they try it? Does anybody really need to glorify the memory of guys who were basically fighting for an evil regime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 We've been looking at ourselves for the last 50 years though, and the same issues exist. I agree, the flags and statues are only symbolic, but I just don't know if there's a cure for what the real problem is. Maybe not letting psyco's pack heat would be a good start. Until the Yankee gun laws are changed you are always going to get incidents like this. That's not what Jamie was getting at, we were talking more about race relations than gun violence, although both are clearly problematic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 Does anybody really need to glorify the memory of guys who were basically fighting for an evil regime? No...but there are millions of white and even some black Southerners who think the Confederate flag stands for "Heritage Not Hate", ignoring the fact that the Confederacy was set up primarily to protect the system of slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Many indigenous peoples around the world probably have a similar distaste for the Union Jack to be fair. One person's heritage is another's symbol of oppression and genocide. It's a fine line to balance that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieZ Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 In the wake of the Charleston church massacre, there's a big push to have the Confederate flag removed from Southern state capitol buildings, and state flags, as well as statues of Jefferson Davis (Confederate President). And even right wing Southern pols are agreeing that they should go. Really amazing, actually. It will not be popular with a lot of conservative voters though, which makes it a hot potato issue as the presidential primaries get going. Should be fascinating to watch it all unfold. I'd be overjoyed to see all of those flags and statues torn down, all of those streets and landmarks renamed—but I fear that this focus on rebranding the South is going to distract from the real issue here, which is America's deep-seated race problem, something far more insidious and firmly-entrenched than some visible symbols of a remote historical past. And it's not a Southern legacy alone. You can make over the South to look more like the North, but America's race problem isn't a Southern issue—it's a national issue. The entire nation needs to take a look at itself, ask some difficult questions, and go through an even more difficult process of growth and maturation. I've never lived in the States and I see what you are saying but I'm not sure I agree. I don't think tearing down a few flags and renaming a few streets is going to solve the problem overnight but those streets are named after men who went to war to fight for slavery and those flags are they symbol of a nation which tried to exist so it could build an economy based on enslaving black people for physical labour. It's a spin on the clean trains program which was used to clean up NYC isn't it? The logic back then is that if you cleaned up graffiti on the subway then you remove the perception that the city is a crime ridden shithole or owned by a certain group of people that others find intimidating. Remove that imagery and the city can remove that perception. It can change a message which the very fabric of a place can display. The same can be done in the former Confederate states, remove that imagery and maybe you can chip away at an attitude which is perceived to be there. Some people might see that as Orwellian newspeak, others might see it as a necessary step on the way to dragging race relations into the 21st century. It won't solve things overnight. I can't emphasise that enough, but why shouldn't they try it? Does anybody really need to glorify the memory of guys who were basically fighting for an evil regime? Yeah, I don't think there's any disagreement there at all. I'm all for tearing down the flag. I'm just not for stopping when we get there, because that's where the real work starts. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Does anybody really need to glorify the memory of guys who were basically fighting for an evil regime? No...but there are millions of white and even some black Southerners who think the Confederate flag stands for "Heritage Not Hate", ignoring the fact that the Confederacy was set up primarily to protect the system of slavery. There certainly seems to be a lot literature about which challenges the claim that the civil war was motivated by a wish to end slavery, and it is very convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 25, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 25, 2015 Like most wars, it was not a one-issue thing. Different participants had different objectives. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Like most wars, it was not a one-issue thing. Different participants had different objectives. There is definitely a difference between motives and pretexts, and winners do get to write the history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Does anybody really need to glorify the memory of guys who were basically fighting for an evil regime? No...but there are millions of white and even some black Southerners who think the Confederate flag stands for "Heritage Not Hate", ignoring the fact that the Confederacy was set up primarily to protect the system of slavery. There certainly seems to be a lot literature about which challenges the claim that the civil war was motivated by a wish to end slavery, and it is very convincing. I was given to believe it was about state rights v federal rights in regards to the government having the right to abolish slavery but tariffs and taxation may have been the initial fuse that lit the cauldron ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Does anybody really need to glorify the memory of guys who were basically fighting for an evil regime? No...but there are millions of white and even some black Southerners who think the Confederate flag stands for "Heritage Not Hate", ignoring the fact that the Confederacy was set up primarily to protect the system of slavery. There certainly seems to be a lot literature about which challenges the claim that the civil war was motivated by a wish to end slavery, and it is very convincing. I was given to believe it was about state rights v federal rights in regards to the government having the right to abolish slavery but tariffs and taxation may have been the initial fuse that lit the cauldron ? The chronology was all wrong if it was just about slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act was democratically made law in 1850, which required states to return slaves to their owners. The Civil War started in 1861 but Lincoln didn't make his Emancipation Proclamation until two years later in 1863, which suggests it was more a strategy for weakening the South, rather an expression of moral outrage at slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Does anybody really need to glorify the memory of guys who were basically fighting for an evil regime? No...but there are millions of white and even some black Southerners who think the Confederate flag stands for "Heritage Not Hate", ignoring the fact that the Confederacy was set up primarily to protect the system of slavery. There certainly seems to be a lot literature about which challenges the claim that the civil war was motivated by a wish to end slavery, and it is very convincing. As Mike says, it was just one motivating factor. But as for the Confederacy itself, it's entire reason for being was to protect the institution of slavery. Edited June 25, 2015 by maqroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JamieZ Posted June 25, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Is there anything ambiguous about this, taken from the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union? "...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety." If you read the secession declarations of various Southern states, you'll see there's very little room to argue this wasn't about slavery. States' rights? Sure, the states' right to protect slavery, especially as pertains to the establishment of new territories in the West. Here's a great article. Edited June 25, 2015 by JamieZ 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Exactly. You can cook up as many other reasons as you like, but they eventually all boil down to a determination to preserve slavery, both as an intensely valuable economic system and as a 'happy' system which preserved the racial 'natural order'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Exactly. You can cook up as many other reasons as you like, but they eventually all boil down to a determination to preserve slavery, both as an intensely valuable economic system and as a 'happy' system which preserved the racial 'natural order'. But you should really do the reading and research first before you start dispensing certainties, otherwise you are in danger of just parroting the comforting orthodoxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 That's fair, I agree with that. It's just that, in this case, the orthodox view is totally correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 That's fair, I agree with that. It's just that, in this case, the orthodox view is totally 'correct'. Fixed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 S.C. pols voted today to remove the Confederate flag from the state house and all state govt. buildings. Only 150 years late... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Currently in Yerevan and went around a military museum today which was rather interesting , we went through the World War II bit and the guide asked me if England was involved in World War II at all !!! I guess we just sorta take it for granted that everyone knows our role but it seems not , she seemed very surprised when I told her .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted August 20, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 20, 2015 If that had been me, she wouldn't have got another word in until I'd given her a one hour lecture, followed by a test and a demand for a written apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 If that had been me, she wouldn't have got another word in until I'd given her a one hour lecture, followed by a test and a demand for a written apology. Tbf she was very very knowledgable on the soviet side of wwii as you would expect ,it may just be the way it was taught in the soviet states ... I have what I think is a good knowledge of wwii but in terms of the Russian side of the story it would be found wanting outside of Stalingrad and the march on Berlin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts