Southern pride gone wrong!

[crashbb]

Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that no matter what the confederate flag (or the swastika, for that matter) was originally meant to symbolize, or what it still may symbolize to some, it's prominent use by hate groups such as the KKK (and nazis) has overshadowed it's original meaning, and has associated it with these groups and their philosophies.

Many years ago I did an exchange in France. The family with whom I stayed lived in the Basque region. When I left, they gave some jewellery with the Basque Cross. ALthough lovely, I don't wear it because it so closely resembles the swastika.

If I were in the Basque region, people would see it for what it is (the Basque Cross), but in North America, I think most people would see a swastika.

 

[princessmom29]

So there is no place on the internet where this can be found except one book?

Try reading about "The Lost Cause" - the historical terminology for the quasi-revisionist history attempted after the civil war. The idealization of Robert E Lee is part of the key tenants.

Note the first paragraph (from the Encyclopedia):
The Lost Cause is an interpretation of the American Civil War (1861–1865) that seeks to present the war, from the perspective of Confederates, in the best possible terms. Developed by white Southerners, many of them former Confederate generals, in a postwar climate of economic, racial, and gender uncertainty, the Lost Cause created and romanticized the "Old South" and the Confederate war effort, often distorting history in the process. For this reason, many historians have labeled the Lost Cause a myth or a legend. It is certainly an important example of public memory, one in which nostalgia for the Confederate past is accompanied by a collective forgetting of the horrors of slavery. Providing a sense of relief to white Southerners who feared being dishonored by defeat, the Lost Cause was largely accepted in the years following the war by white Americans who found it to be a useful tool in reconciling North and South. The Lost Cause has lost much of its academic support but continues to be an important part of how the Civil War is commemorated in the South and remembered in American popular culture


http://encyclopediavirginia.org/Lost_Cause_The

again, someone's interpretation of the facts. I have mine, andf you have yours. Mosto f the primary source documents in question simply do exist on the internet becuase no one wants to beleive it could posibbly be true that the South was not the big bad bully in the situation. Sorry, you seem to feel that way as well. If you are really interested is seeing both perspectives, I suggest some rela research, possibly including a trip to a souithern library to read the real primary source documents form the era. Most of them have not been widely published or digtized becuase there are not funds to do so. No one wants to fund something that could prove that this nation's peception of the ignorant biggots south of the Mason-Dixon could possibly be wrong.

 

[FireDancer]

Many years ago I did an exchange in France. The family with whom I stayed lived in the Basque region. When I left, they gave some jewellery with the Basque Cross. ALthough lovely, I don't wear it because it so closely resembles the swastika.

If I were in the Basque region, people would see it for what it is (the Basque Cross), but in North America, I think most people would see a swastika.

FWIW I see a fan or even flower pedals, I would have never thought swastika.

 

[NY Disney fan]

And I wish people would stop vilifying it.

Stop vilifying the flag that represents American slavery? I don't think so. Maybe one day people will stop vilifying the swastika. Could happen, you never know.

 

[Geoff_M]

again, someone's interpretation of the facts. I have mine, andf you have yours.

While I realize that it's said that "History is written by the victors", that's not an interpretation by "someone", I think it's fair to say that's the general view held by historians in general after surveying the whole, and not just a selected, set of "facts".

 

[princessmom29]

Stop vilifying the flag that represents American slavery? I don't think so. Maybe one day people will stop vilifying the swastika. Could happen, you never know.

it doesn't repesent slavery. Sorry that you cannot see past your own hate and bias to see that.

 

[princessmom29]

FWIW I see a fan or even flower pedals, I would have never thought swastika.

me either. Looks more like a flower to me. In general, I think many are waay too owversensitive about these things. I would definitely wear it with no reservations. YOU know it's importance, that is all that matters. I feel the same way about the battle flag. I KNOW what it stands for, that is what matters to me.

 

[YodaGirl]

Ya'll can argue what the war was about all day long, and in the end it doesn't matter. The ending result was the same. Slavery ended.

But another fact remains also and that is that flying the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism for most people. Yes, the KKK carries one. They also carry a Bible. Should we not allow that to be displayed either?

It is a symbol of the old South, like it or not. And many, many Southerners are proud of coming from the old South. And many, many Southerners get really tired of being told what symbols they can and can't have and what flag they can and can't fly.

FWIW I see a fan or even flower pedals, I would have never thought swastika.

Same here. Never would have thought anything about a swastika.

Stop vilifying the flag that represents American slavery? I don't think so. Maybe one day people will stop vilifying the swastika. Could happen, you never know.

The Confederate Battle flag (not the same as the Stars and Bars, by the way - different flag) does not represent slavery.

I will not apologize for being proud to be a Southerner. To me and lots of others, the flag doesn't represent hate. Anymore, I don't even necessarily associate it with the Civil War or any of the motives behind the war.

 

[NY Disney fan]

it doesn't repesent slavery. .

It doesn't? Oh ok, for a minute there I thought the Civil War actually happened. Thanks!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

While I realize that it's said that "History is written by the victors", that's not an interpretation by "someone", I think it's fair to say that's the general view held by historians in general after surveying the whole, and not just a selected, set of "facts".

Agreed - but history isn't just written once and left alone. It is re-written time and again. The further from the actual events, the less that "history" reflects actual events. Books written immediately after the Civil War tell a very different tale than books written today. Most of the people in the Northern states opposed the Civil War at the time - not something that is common knowledge today.

Here is a great web site that, while written from a Northern point of view, gets most of the facts straight. link...

 

[wvjules]

I feel like watching North and South now.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

yep, got that , NOT STUPID! It is just the closest thing at hand quickly that referenced it. See below for a factual work on the subject.

Beleive whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there was in fact a plan in place in the Confederacy for emancipation. Just beciase it doesn't meet with your lofty moral standards doesn't mean it didn't exist, which is what you started out arguing.

No, no, no. There was no "plan in place" there was "vague consideration by a small number of people of enacting a possible limited emancipation so the slaves could fight for the rebels once it became evident that the rebels could not win the war" and that consideration never advanced to any meaningful stage. Perhaps if it was really their plan, instead of a last-ditch attempt at saving their failed rebellion, they should have started its consideration a little earlier, like before seceding from the Union? Well, except that their new Constitution was at direct odds with that plan?

There were no doubt plans in the South for the extermination of the North's army, as well, so shall we assume those were "in place" despite the fact that the South couldn't do it? Plans without action mean nothing, and we don't even know that the plan existed.

Your logic is breaking down and your arguments are now jumping wildly back and forth. You said that secession wasn't about slaves, but the inalienable right to own slaves was included in CSA's Constitution (and in Jeff Davis' secession speech). You say there was a plan to emancipate the slaves but cannot provide any evidence beyond a Sci-Fi fantasy book. You then claim the records are not on the internet because nobody will pay to digitize them. Might I suggest that instead of buying rebel flags, somebody down there invest in digitizing the records you claim exist but are not digitized, so you can educate all of us in the rest of the country about the South's great plan to free the slaves?

You're still bitter about something that happened 150 years and you're still fighting the war. The war is over, so may I sincerely suggest that you make peace with the fact that fact and turn your attention to fixing the issues with your state that exist today, rather than rehashing old conflicts?

 

[YodaGirl]

I feel like watching North and South now.

 

[princessmom29]

No, no, no. There was no "plan in place" there was "vague consideration by a small number of people of enacting a possible limited emancipation so the slaves could fight for the rebels once it became evident that the rebels could not win the war" and that consideration never advanced to any meaningful stage. Perhaps if it was really their plan, instead of a last-ditch attempt at saving their failed rebellion, they should have started its consideration a little earlier, like before seceding from the Union? Well, except that their new Constitution was at direct odds with that plan?

There were no doubt plans in the South for the extermination of the North's army, as well, so shall we assume those were "in place" despite the fact that the South couldn't do it? Plans without action mean nothing, and we don't even know that the plan existed.

Your logic is breaking down and your arguments are now jumping wildly back and forth. You said that secession wasn't about slaves, but the inalienable right to own slaves was included in CSA's Constitution (and in Jeff Davis' secession speech). You say there was a plan to emancipate the slaves but cannot provide any evidence beyond a Sci-Fi fantasy book. You then claim the records are not on the internet because nobody will pay to digitize them. Might I suggest that instead of buying rebel flags, somebody down there invest in digitizing the records you claim exist but are not digitized, so you can educate all of us in the rest of the country about the South's great plan to free the slaves?

You're still bitter about something that happened 150 years and you're still fighting the war. The war is over, so may I sincerely suggest that you make peace with the fact that fact and turn your attention to fixing the issues with your state that exist today, rather than rehashing old conflicts?

Your hate and bias will lead you to believe whatever renforces that world view you have chosen. I guess you are ignoring the actual history book I posted and taking pot shots at this point. I don't have hate in my heart for anyone, but it is sad to see the South vilified over and over by those that do. As you said, mabye we should let go of what happened 150 years ago instead of still crucifying Southerners over it agian and agian. Mabye then it would be easier for southernenrs to let go too. As for the "problems with our state" we have our share, but so does everyone else. Many of ours are blown completely out of proportion as well by folks who see the south as full of ignorant hicks.

 

[Geoff_M]

Agreed - but history isn't just written once and left alone. It is re-written time and again.

I agree. Historian Stephen Ambrose wrote a great book after he was diagnosed with cancer called "To America". It's central theme is examples of historical views that have changed over time (the perceptions of Nixon being one). However, the "Lost Causers", I believe, are guilty of what's known as "Argument by Anomaly". That is, they point to certain pieces of information while ignoring or minimizing the large pile of contradictory information that is already known.

Yes, the popular view of the Civil War today may be a bit myopic in general, but I believe that it's better than it once was in thanks to things like Ken Burns' and Shelby Foote's work.

 

[crashbb]

I feel like watching North and South now.

I feel like I already am!

Actually (if you dig past some of the vitriol), it is kind of interesting. I'm Canadian, so this is not part of my history and not something about which I know a lot.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Agreed - but history isn't just written once and left alone. It is re-written time and again. The further from the actual events, the less that "history" reflects actual events. Books written immediately after the Civil War tell a very different tale than books written today. Most of the people in the Northern states opposed the Civil War at the time - not something that is common knowledge today.

Here is a great web site that, while written from a Northern point of view, gets most of the facts straight. link...

Of course many people opposed it; most intelligent people DO oppose needless carnage and death. We had to sacrifice the lives of our boys and spend our money to fight a war to keep the nation together. But once war became inevitable through the secession of the rebel states, war was the only option left. So we fought to win, and we won.

 

[badblackpug]

it doesn't repesent slavery. Sorry that you cannot see past your own hate and bias to see that.

me either. Looks more like a flower to me. In general, I think many are waay too owversensitive about these things. I would definitely wear it with no reservations. YOU know it's importance, that is all that matters. I feel the same way about the battle flag. I KNOW what it stands for, that is what matters to me.

Same here. Never would have thought anything about a swastika.



The Confederate Battle flag (not the same as the Stars and Bars, by the way - different flag) does not represent slavery.

I will not apologize for being proud to be a Southerner. To me and lots of others, the flag doesn't represent hate. Anymore, I don't even necessarily associate it with the Civil War or any of the motives behind the war.

I think you will find, to the majority of people, the confederate flag, does, indeed, represent racism and hatred. I actually think that the people who think it doesn't are in the minority. It has been a symbol which has long been associated with the KKK, and I am sure that everyone is VERY clear on their beliefs. Actually, I think you are having difficulty seeing past your own bias. Simply because you insist that it does not represent these things to you does not make it so for everyone. As a matter of fact, in my area, it is widely referred to as a "klan flag."

...and yes, people are overly sensitive about symbols such as swastikas and southern flags, particularly people whose relatives were tortured and killed in gas chambers under this symbol, or people whose relatives were lynched or tarred and feathered or drug to death behind moving vehicles under that flag.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Your hate and bias will lead you to believe whatever renforces that world view you have chosen. I guess you are ignoring the actual history book I posted and taking pot shots at this point. I don't have hate in my heart for anyone, but it is sad to see the South vilified over and over by those that do. As you said, mabye we should let go of what happened 150 years ago instead of still crucifying Southerners over it agian and agian. Mabye then it would be easier for southernenrs to let go too. As for the "problems with our state" we have our share, but so does everyone else. Many of ours are blown completely out of proportion as well by folks who see the south as full of ignorant hicks.

The "actual history book" that you posted references a controlled emancipation of freedom for slaves to force them to fight for the confederate army (great choice: be a slave or die to protect our rights to keep you a slave). It does not reference emancipation from freedom because slavery was wrong. It also was a plan that never took effect, so can you perhaps see why I don't accept this as "the South's great plan to free the slaves"?

Put another way, are all the plans of previous Presidents "fact", if they never took effect? How many plans have never gone into effect through the years? With our current political gridlock, we're seeing them left and right from the left and right!

Furthermore, given that is the only document you can provide, I'm sorry but I'm unwilling to accept that your version of history has any legitimacy. I think, quite honestly, that you are living in a world of revisionistic history that fits more with your Science Fiction fantasy book than what actually took place.* Not hate. Not bias. Just my opinions.


*ETA: I'll give you credit that perhaps the reason you are revising history is because you don't want to actually admit that the South fought, in part, for the right to keep people enslaved, and that as a result you have created an alternate reality to lessen those feelings of guilt for the actions of your ancestors? Because if not, I honestly just don't get it...

 

[luvsJack]

Perception is reality. Like it or not. Maybe people are proud of coming from the "old south"- but the "old South" referenced by that flag included owning people. Somehow I find that offensive.

Substitute "Nazi Germany" for "old south" and re-read your last paragraph. Not one person on this entire thread has said they don't have the 'right' to fly the flag-in fact, many have defended that right. However -the post was about 'Southern Pride gone wrong".

JMO

So the "old south" without the flag doesn't represent slavery to you? or is it the "old south" in general?

That flag didn't stand for slavery--didn't then and it doesn't now. The American flag flew over slavery much longer than that flag did.